Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Clive Betts in the Chair]

Clause 8

Right of appeal against determination by local authority not to amend statement

Amendment proposed (this day): 75, in clause 8, page 11, line 12, at end insert
and inform the parent of their right to appeal to the Tribunal..(Tim Loughton.)

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Clive Betts: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 157, in clause 8, page 11, line 13, after parent, insert
or the head teacher of the school which the pupil attends.
Amendment 233, in clause 8, page 11, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert
(4) The school at which the pupil is registered may appeal to the Tribunal..
Amendment 165, in clause 8, page 11, line 18, at end insert
(5A) On receipt of an appeal a determination must be made within 8 weeks..

Vernon Coaker: Good afternoon, Mr. Betts. I welcome the Committee back to its deliberations.
I apologise for somewhat interrupting the flow of our proceedings, but in the short break, I found some statistics that might be of interest to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, although I will see whether there are more that might be of use. Ofsted is currently reviewing its pool of specialist special educational needs inspectors, as recommended by the Lamb inquiry. Of the 386 Her Majestys inspectors who inspect for Ofsted, a quarter specialise in inspecting one or more area of SEN. Ofsted has not yet provided me with figures for additional inspectors, but they will be included in the response to the hon. Gentlemans recent parliamentary question. I hope that information helps him and other Committee members.
On amendment 165, we share the desire that parents not be left waiting for a long period following an annual review meeting before they receive the authority decision on whether amendments are made. The annual review cycle already has statutory time limits. Section 324 of the Education Act 1996 requires the review to be completed within 12 months of the statement being made or of the previous review. The deadline set by the amendment could go beyond that 12-month period. If the review started at the beginning of December and there was an eight-week period, the deadline under the amendment would be the end of January, whereas the statutory deadline would be the end of December. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, but that would be the effect of her amendment.
As always, I will try to help the Committee. Perhaps there is some confusion over this issue. I am perfectly satisfied with the existing statutory limit for the review period of 12 months after a statement is made. An issue arises if somebody appeals the result of the reviewperhaps the hon. Lady means that there is an issue with the appeal time. I will give an example. If a statement is made at the end of December and a parent appeals the review, the appeal to the first-tier SEN tribunal could take six months. If the parent does not agree with the first-tier SEN tribunal, they can take the matter to the second tier, which could take another two or three months. Clearly, that raises issues.
That process is the responsibility of not the Department for Children, Schools and Families, but the Ministry of Justice. A lot of work has been done to streamline that appeal process, but I know it causes issues. I say to the hon. Lady that I will speak to the Ministry of Justice about the appeal time to see whether anything can be done. The Ministry of Justice has worked exceptionally hard to ensure that the appeal time is kept to a minimum. As always, I can talk to my colleagues to see what can be done as a consequence of this important issueanother Minister is in the room to hear me say that.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister. I had an overriding concern that the whole thing was getting dragged out at different stages, so I tabled the amendment to probe the situation. I will be grateful if he has further discussions with the Ministry of Justice.

Vernon Coaker: Of course, and we can discuss what can be done. I know that everyone is working hard on that. Following my brief comments, I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton: The Minister got those statistics rapidly, so it would be churlish of me not acknowledge the helpfulness with which he has approached our amendments. The clincher before lunch was his assurance that a video will be available for people who need assistance to use the tribunal system. As I said, these are probing amendments, and our good debate has clarified some points. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clive Betts: Before we come to clause 9, I would like to make two brief comments. First, while we made some progress this morning, it would probably not be described as rapid. I know that there is enthusiasm in the Committee for a later sitting this evening to try to make further progress, but nevertheless I have a responsibility to the House to try to ensure that we make good progress. While I can keep hon. Members in order, I encourage everyone to be as succinct as possible, because ultimately the one thing that we cannot change is the 5 pm deadline on Thursday when proceedings have to conclude.
Secondly, it is my view that the next two groups of amendments will allow sufficient debate to mean that we shall not need a stand part debate on clause 9.

Clause 9

Exceptional provision of education in short stay schools or elsewhere

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment 166, in clause 9, page 11, line 29, leave out compulsory school and insert participation.

Clive Betts: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 168, in clause 9, page 11, line 34, at end insert
(1B) In relation to England, each local education authority shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for 16-19 students pursuing such examination courses as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State who, by reason of illness, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them..

Annette Brooke: I will keep my comments succinct.
The amendments are focused on the first aspect of clause 9, which I generally welcome. I have long been interested in the education provision for children with long-term illnesses, probably because I spent seven months in hospital as a teenager. I have also carried out quite a lot of constituency work relating to the issue, so I have been thinking about what could be improved. Clearly, the requirement for full-time education up to 16, as it stands, is a great improvement. However, I am concerned about the statutory guidance, which will have to be revised because, as I am aware from case work, parents are not always told about their rights when they apply for home tuition and perhaps have no knowledge about the choice of alternative education. I know of children with long-term illnesses who have been placed in pupil referral units that were not what I would say was suitable education. The statutory guidance will be important.
I am grateful to the Minister for enabling me to talk to some of his officials because that clarified what was troubling me about the clause. It became apparent that the compulsory school age was one matter, but that we would change the participation age in the near future. By the time it is raised to 18, my second concern will have been addressed. However, I feel that the Bill should say participation rather than compulsory school age, because people should have the right to participate in school along with their peers and be supported in alternative forms of education, should that be appropriate.
Amendment 168 is more direct than amendment 166. I do not want to make legislation on the basis of one case, but I would like to refer briefly to a constituency case that relates to the background of the amendment. The daughter of one of my constituents has ME. She eventually had home tuition and got five good GCSEs. She wished to do some time at home and some time at school in the sixth form to pursue her A-levels, but that turned out to be a nightmare. At the time there was the triangle of the Learning and Skills Council, Connexions and the local authority, and we could not obtain a promise of funding for home tuition. She has gone back to school but, with ME, is finding it difficult to cope with full-time study in the sixth form.
The clause retains the position whereby it is effectively up to the local authoritys discretion to provide post-16 education, but that is wrong. When we have young people who wish to pursue A-levels or other courses of their choice, there should still be a duty on the local authority. I realise that the Minister might want to add conditions to such a policy to ensure that students follow appropriate courses, so with great help from the Bill team, I have tabled amendment 168, which states:
In relation to England, each local education authority shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for 16-19 students pursuing such examination courses as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
I hope that the provision is expressed in a way that the Minister considers acceptable.
When parents have a very sick child, they are so busy sorting out their health needs that a battle with the education authority is just one too many things to cope with. My constituent has had a difficult time. We know that quite a lot of young people have ME, and I am sure that we can think of other health conditions that make it difficult for young people to attend school full time, yet from which they might well recover. I hope that my constituents daughter will attend university in due course. I will be very grateful if the Minister will consider the amendments. I tabled them not to oppose the Government, but to close the loophole.

Vernon Coaker: The clause is extremely important. It will ensure that full-time education is available in alternative provision not only, as the law states at present, for those excluded from school, but for those who might not be at school for medical or other reasons. As such, it is one of those clauses that sometimes pass a Committee by, despite their significance, and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is right to draw the measure to our attention.
We want to ensure that the provision is enacted as soon as possible. As the hon. Lady said, the compulsory school age of up to 16 is obviously easily defined under law. As for post-16 education, raising the participation age will not happen until 2013 for 17-year-olds, and not until 2015 for 18-year-olds, and her concerns are about the provision of full-time education for those people in the interim. Through guidance laid out alongside the Bill, we intend to explain what is expected to happen. The raising of the participation age is good legislation, and we must ensure that what everyone regards as a good way forward does not create a difficulty, albeit even in the short term. We intend to address that through guidance.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole seeks to amend clause 9(2)(a) so that local authorities would be under a duty to arrange education for all children of participation age who, for reasons of illness, exclusion or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education. I assure her that the amendment is not necessary. In accordance with the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, local authorities will have a duty to ensure that enough suitable education or training is available for all 16 to 19-year-olds in their area. We intend those provisions to come into force on 1 April this year. It is our intention that local authorities and education providers will take steps to ensure that special arrangements are in place to support a young persons continued participation in learning. When the powers for funding a commission transfer to local authorities in line with the ASCL Act, those local authority functions will be further strengthened.
Amendment 168 would create a new duty for local authorities to arrange suitable education for 16 to 19-year-olds who are
pursuing such examination courses as may be specified in an order...who by reason of illness, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them..
I assure the hon. Lady that in our view, this amendment is also unnecessary. The Education and Skills Act 2008 created a new legal duty for local authorities which, once in force, will require them to exercise their functions so as to promote effective participation in education or training for all 16 to 18-year-olds, including those who suffer from illness. In addition, local authorities will be required to exercise their new functions in the ASCL Act, to secure the provision of education or training for 16 to 18-year-olds, with a view to enabling those persons to fulfil the duty to participate. As I have said to the hon. Lady, alongside that we intend to put into guidance the need for local authorities to provide education or training opportunities for the young people covered by the clause. The hon. Lady has highlighted a slight gap, which we intend to fill through guidance, and with that assurance, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his lengthy reply and for his responsiveness on the issue. I am pleased that he will pick it up in guidance, which I hope will be as strong as possible so that we do not have the difficult situation of a local authority not wanting to find the money for a genuine case. With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 192, in clause 9, page 12, line 1, after if, insert
, following an independent assessment of the physical or mental health of the child,.

Clive Betts: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 167, in clause 9, page 12, line 2, after child, insert
and after consultation with parents, carers and medical professionals,.
Amendment 187, in clause 9, page 12, line 3, leave out impracticable or otherwise inappropriate and insert detrimental to the childs well-being.
Amendment 191, in clause 9, page 12, line 4, at end insert
(3AAA) A decision under subsection (3AA) shall, at the request of the parent of the child concerned be subject to annual review..
Amendment 158, in clause 9, page 12, line 10, at end add
(5) After subsection (6) there is inserted
(6A) Where a local authority considers that it would be impracticable or otherwise inappropriate for full time education to be provided for a child under this section, a local authority must, within 2 months, draw up plans for such support as is necessary to allow the child to return to full time education as soon as this is appropriate..

Nick Gibb: Clause 9 requires local authorities to provide full-time education for children who, for whatever reason, are not attending school. Subsection (3) provides an exception to that duty if
the local authority consider that, for reasons which relate to the physical or mental health of the child, it would be impracticable or otherwise inappropriate for full-time education to be provided for the child.
Amendment 192 would mean that that requirement would apply only following an independent assessment of the physical or mental health of the child. It reflects concerns raised by the National Autistic Society, which said in a briefing to members of the Committee:
We recognise that there may be some circumstances where it may be inappropriate for a child to be in full-time education, but have concerns about:
Who would make the assessment about what is appropriate for the child and;
Whether the clause would provide local authorities with a wide get out of jail free card not to provide education for children for whom they are unable to find appropriate education locally or whose needs mean that provision would be very expensive.
It continues:
Given the wide lack of understanding of autism and the potential for a conflict of interest, we believe that assessments on appropriateness would have to be made independently by someone with experience and expertise in the childs condition. Autism is a complex condition and without a full understanding of how to communicate with the child and what their needs may be, it is unlikely that a fair and comprehensive assessment would be made.
We agree with that assessment, which goes on:
The use of the word impracticable in the clause is of particular concern here. We would like to know in what cases it would be impracticable for a child to receive full-time education, if this is not related to cost.
It would be helpful and would reassure the National Autistic Society if the Minister could address that specific concern in his response. The NAS also states:
An assurance that there will be independent assessments to determine state of the child's physical/mental health
would be helpful, and that is what the amendment seeks to do.
Amendment 191 reflects concerns raised by Barnardos. In its briefing, it said:
Whilst Barnardos accepts that it is pragmatic to allow exceptions, we would like Members to seek assurances that this will be on a time-limited basis and subject to review after a fixed period, agreed with the parents or carers.
It goes on to explain:
We know from the experience of our services and the young people they work with that some young people facing temporary barriers to participationfor example, teenage mothers who have recently given birth or young people with mental health difficultiesend up drifting out of education altogether.
Amendment 191 would insert a new subsection requiring that any decision about not providing full-time education, because of the physical or mental health of the child, be reviewed annually if requested by the parents of the children concerned.
With those few words, I await the Ministers response.

Annette Brooke: This string of amendments focuses on the words impracticable or otherwise inappropriate. As has already been said, they have been viewed as a get out of jail free card. There is concern about how that will be interpreted at a local level. Amendment 167, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and me, suggests that there must be consultation with parents, carers and medical professionals. Taken with amendment 192, which seeks a full independent assessment, both amendments make a strong support package and both are important.
We have heard what the National Autistic Society said. Another amendment that we tabledamendment 187 was suggested by the Special Educational Consortium. The amendment would delete impracticable or otherwise inappropriate and insert
detrimental to the childs well-being.
That is suggested because there is a concern that the local authority is given too much discretion. There need to be checks and balances on that discretion, because we all know how very expensive an out-of-area placement can be, and one has to be clear that the childs interests have been put first.
I find amendment 191 quite appealing. We have submitted amendment 158, whereby
a local authority must...draw up plans...to allow the child to return to full time education as soon as this is appropriate.
That may pick up the teenage pregnancy point that we mentioned earlier. It is a difficult area. Even though we are talking about a relatively severe conditiona very special conditionand they will all individually be very different, we need the checks and balances so that we put the childs interests first rather than the monetary interests of the local authority. I know that they are a big constraint for a small local authority. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassuring words on all these amendments.

Vernon Coaker: Approximately 70,000 children are affected by the issue each year. Let me reiterate the point because, as I think we all know from our constituencies, it is an important and emotive topic. The clause will for the first time make full-time education available for those who are in alternative provision who have not been excluded from school. I think we all regret that that does not happen at the moment, so the Bill will put that right. However, in putting it right, we do not want to create unintended consequences. Having said that the aspiration is for any young person who is not in school or who is in alternative provision to have full-time education, it may be that in certain circumstancesfor example, for medical reasons or the best reasonsit is simply not appropriate or suitable for that to happen.
As hon. Members would expect for a Minister of the Crown, I would not quite call subsection (3AA) a get-out provision, but there could be a great deal more clarity and certainty in the phrasing and in what we mean. As I say, we do not want to have a clause that everyone supports if tucked away in it is something that says we do not expect children to have full-time education if it is simply inappropriate for them. We do not want the measure to be used by some as a way of avoiding their responsibilities under the clause.
I ask the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole to withdraw their amendments. I will take some legal advice on the matter and come back on Report with a Government amendment to try to deal with the points raised by them and, indeed, many others. I hope that is helpful to them.

Caroline Flint: Referring back to a comment made by the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, will the Minister clarify how the clause will affect pregnant teenagers? Clearly, being pregnant is neither an illness nor a disability. Those girls are not being excluded either. Will he reassure me on that matterin relation to this clause or elsewhere in the legislationbecause where the young womans desire is to continue in the secondary school that she has been attending, it might be problematic to provide suitable and appropriate education.

Vernon Coaker: That is a very good, concrete example of the sort of person we mean. It might be someone with a medical condition or it might be someone who for other reasonsfor example, a young girl who is pregnantis in alternative provision. As the law stands, unless such a young person is excluded from school, there is no legal entitlement or necessity for the authority to provide full-time education for them. I think we all consider it to be an anomaly that if someone is ill or is not in school because of particular circumstances and they are in alternative provision, they are not legally entitled to full-time provision, whereas if someone is excluded from school, after six days out of school, the local authority is legally obliged to provide full-time education for them.
In exactly the circumstances that my right hon. Friend referred to of a young girl in such a situationI am sure we can all think of other examples where somebody is not ill, but for certain reasons they are unable to be in school and they are in alternative provisionif the clause is passed, the legal necessity will be to ensure that full-time provision, where appropriate and necessary, is provided. I want to frame the clause in such a way that although it makes that a legal certainty for young people in that situation, it allows flexibility where appropriate. We want to do so in a way that does not allow anyone to evade their responsibilities. I hope that was helpful to my hon. Friend. With those remarks, and our commitment that we will table a Government amendment on Report to do what I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and Opposition Members want, I hope that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I was impressed by the Ministers response. He is right that the law is improved by clause 9 and that, in putting right a law, he does not want to create the unintended consequences of having to provide full-time education for children who clearly, for a variety of reasons, cannot cope with it. I now understand that he is also cognisant that, in trying to tackle any potential unintended consequence, he does not want to create more of such consequences. As such, he has agreed to take away clause 9(3), which will insert proposed new section 19(3A) into the Education Act 1996, and I am grateful to him for doing so. I do not claim that my amendment is perfectly drafted, and I understand why he wants to take further advice. If he wishes to consult, Opposition Members will be happy to participate in that and make the legislation exactly right. I know that people outside the House, particularly the National Autistic Society and Barnardos, will be pleased with the Ministers response. With those few words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Areas of learning

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 10, page 12, line 17, leave out areas of learning and insert subjects.

Clive Betts: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 52, in clause 10, page 12, line 21, leave out areas of learning and insert subjects.
Amendment 238, in clause 10, page 12, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert
(3) The following are the core subjects for the first and second key stages
(a) mathematics;
(b) English, and
(c) Science.
(3A) The following is a core subject for the second key stage
(a) a modern foreign language.
(3B) The following are the other foundation subjects for the first and second key stages
(a) geography;
(b) history;
(c) art;
(d) music;
(e) physical education and sport;
(f) information and communication technology..
Amendment 50, in clause 10, page 12, leave out line 36.
Amendment 182, in clause 10, page 12, line 36, at end insert
( ) The governing body and head teacher of every maintained school or maintained nursery school shall have responsibility for developing areas of learning to meet the needs of children in their schools..
Amendment 53, in clause 10, page 13, line 4, leave out area of learning and insert subject.
Amendment 183, in clause 10, page 13, line 5, at end add
( ) The Secretary of State shall from time to time, though not more than once in each parliament, review the effectiveness of arrangements for areas of learning including attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements..
For reasons given previously, I am not minded at this stage to allow a stand part debate, as all these matters will be considered as part of the debates on the amendments.

Nick Gibb: Clause 10 introduces the new primary curriculum as recommended by the Rose review. It will replace section 84 of the Education Act 2002 with proposed new section 83A. The new section will replace the requirement to study mathematics, which was set out in section 84(2)(a), with mathematical understanding. The clause will also replace English with
understanding English, communication and languages
and science with scientific and technological understanding. It will take out history and geography, which are separately itemised in the 2002 Act, and replace them with historical, geographical and social understanding. It replaces separately itemised art and design and music with understanding the arts, and physical education with
understanding physical development, health and well being.
Other than the last one, which looks like replacing running and jumping in the gym or playing field with sitting at a desk studying human anatomy, the others appear to be the same as before, but with the word understanding plopped in front. If that is all it is, why worry? However, if that is all it is, why bother changing the legislation and have two reportsthe interim and the final Rose reportson the primary curriculum?
When I asked Jim Rose what the difference was between mathematics, as currently written in the legislation, and mathematical understanding in clause 10, his response was
I am not sure that it is anything different from what we have now.[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2010; c. 82, Q1.]
It does mean something different, or why else go to all the bother? Jim Roses interim report was greeted with howls of derision and criticism, because it revealed too openly the aim of moving from discrete subjects to the cross-curricular teaching methods of the 1960s. That was odd because Jim Rose is one of the so-called three wise men who, in 1992, conducted a government inquiry into low reading standards. Their report explicitly criticised progressive teaching methods:
Over the last few decades the progress of primary pupils has been hampered by the influence of highly questionable dogmas which have led to excessively complex classroom practices and devalued the place of subjects in the curriculum
Jim Rose, Chris Woodhead and Professor Alexander said in 1992 that the place of subjects in the curriculum had been devalued.
More importantly, the clause takes primary education towards an outcome-based education systemknown as OBE for short, in the jargon. The OBE approach has been defined by many educationists, pro and anti, but it is best summed up in Kevin Donnellys bookwhich cites the South Australian framework, which adopted OBEas
understandings, dispositions and capabilities which are developed through the Learning Areas and form an integral part of childrens and students learning from birth to Year 12 and beyond... These understandings, capabilities and dispositions are personal and intellectual qualities, not bodies of knowledge
that is the issue at stake.
That approach to education originates in the 1920s at Teachers college, Columbia, New York. Wherever and whenever it is tried, it fails. It particularly fails those children who have no access to education elsewhere, other than schoolthey have no access at home or through a personal tutor. Kevin Donnelly says in his book, Dumbing Down:
Australias adoption of OBE is the reason why our education system is consistently at the centre of controversy. Since the development of the Keating Governments national statements and profiles in the early to mid-1990s, all states and territories have adopted OBE to various degrees. Internationally, only a handful of countries have attempted to implement OBE and those educational systems that outperform Australia in the TIMMS tests ignore OBE in favour of a more academic and teacher-friendly syllabus.
On the issue of maths, the debate is best summarised by the US mathematician David Ross, quoted in Kevin Donnellys book:
The reformers think that students should struggle with mathematical problems on their own and that, from these struggles, methods of solving the problems will emerge. Having devised these methods themselves, students will understand the abstract conceptual structure of the methods. Their opponents think that unless students are taught the traditional algorithms, they will not be able to do math.
Donnelly goes on to quote from Rhonda Farkota who argues that successfully mastering higher-order skills first requires being taught the basics in a structured, systematic way:
It is generally accepted that a student-directed approach is more suitable when it comes to the employment and cultivation of higher order skills where reasoning and reflection are required. However, for the acquisition of basic mathematical skills, the research clearly shows that teacher-directed learning is better suited. Needless to say, these basic skills must be firmly in place before students can approach problem-solving questions with any degree of competence.
In essence, that is the debate to have plagued education in this country for 50 years. It is all about what has been termed the constructivist approach, which is defined as
a theory of learning that builds on the work of Piaget, Bruner and Vygotsky... Adoption of a constructivist approach in the classroom involves a shift from predominantly teacher-directed methods to student-centred, active discovery learning and immersion approaches via cooperative group work, discussion focused on investigations and problem solving.
As Kevin Donnelly states that when applied to maths, it means that memorising times tables, mental arithmetic, learning by rote and mastering basic algorithms, such as long division, give way to using calculators, co-operative hands-on learning and relating maths to real world applications.
I remember meeting a primary school teacher who said, You dont teach children to multiply by 10 by adding a zero, or to multiply by 100 by adding two zeros. That is just mechanical and doesnt teach them an understanding of maths. That view is widely held, and probably explains an incident that happened to me a few years ago when I spoke to a year 6 group in a primary school in my constituency about the campaign to ensure that every child in sub-Saharan Africa had a teacher. I asked them how much we could raise if we asked every taxpayer, of which there are about 30 million, to pay 10p. Almost immediately, a teacher burst in and said, They cant answer that question. They were the brightest year 6 children in the school, who were co-ordinating the campaign. Members will probably remember receiving letters in which we were invited to go to the school and receive a model of a teacher that they wanted to have in every sub-Saharan country.
The fact is the teacher told me that those children could not do that kind of calculation; they had not been taught how to multiply large numbers. The obsession with not teaching algorithms means that children cannot do problem solving, because they do not have the tools to do it. Jim Rose let it slip that the constructivist approach is behind the reforms recommended in his report. He said:
In the recent past, Ofsted commented on maths and said that children are taught sums, but often do not know what sums to do or how to apply that knowledge when it comes to a practical situation. Given that sort of evidence, which has come forward fairly consistently, I think that the way in which we are suggesting things should be structured is very sensible.[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2010; c. 82, Q1.]
Clause 10 covers the new primary curriculum. The 76 prescriptive objectives in the maths programme of learning and the 84 prescriptive objectives in the English programme of learning are clearly crafted in a way that takes the curriculum in a constructivist direction and an outcomes-based approach. If I am wrong, as Jim Rose says, there is nothing different from what we have now. In either case, we should not be amending the national curriculum as set out in clause 10.
I want to come to the English curriculum when we debate the next set of amendments and the programmes of study. Amendments 54, 52 and 53 would replace the phrase areas of learning with subjects, which is the term used in the Education Act 2002.

Annette Brooke: I seek some clarification. Given that hon. Gentleman thinks that head teachers should have more freedom in implementing the curriculumthat is certainly my partys viewshould there not be the opportunity for one school to choose a cross-curriculum route and another to choose a subject-based route, because that would give parents a choice, and I believe in that sort of choice.

Nick Gibb: I agree with the hon. Lady: a very prescriptive curriculum that insists on a certain philosophy of education is proposed, and we should be giving the discretion to head teachers to use the philosophy that they think will deliver the highest standards. As a quid pro quo, parents should be able to choose the school that they think will be best for their own children. In my judgment, schools should have to publish on their website the educational philosophy, the approach and the curriculum in their schools, so that parents can make an informed choice. What we have at the moment is wrong. It is a centralised approach, the levers of which have been used to promulgate a particular ideology of education

Vernon Coaker: That is not yours.

Nick Gibb: No, it is not the one in which I believe. I shall finish my point, and the Minister can jump in.
Such a system has failed whenever and wherever it has been tried. It is not new. It has been tried many times in this country, and whenever it is tried, it results in a poorer outcome of education for children. Let us consider, for example, the phase when children did not know their multiplication tables. Such periods do enormous damage to young peoples confidence in learning maths and taking it to a further stage. Even though it is now in the national curriculum that children should learn their tables to 10 times 10 by the time that they are nine-years-old, that still does not happen in many schools. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. She is absolutely right. It should be a matter for the professionalism of teachers, but that is not the system that we have at the moment, and what we have is moving in the wrong direction.

Vernon Coaker: I apologise for jumping in. The hon. Gentleman accuses us of pursuing an ideology, but what is he pursuing?

Nick Gibb: I am happy to have a debate about approaches to education. For too long, such issues have been debated among educationists behind closed doors. Those who are affected by it are excluded from the debate. I feel strongly as a Member of Parliament and as a shadow Education Minister that we should be debating such matters in public and I take every opportunity to do so. I believe strongly in phonics and learning multiplication tables by rote, so that the child has an automaticity and is not busy floundering, working out seven times six in a long division sum.

Tim Loughton: What is the answer?

Nick Gibb: Forty-two, incidentally. That system is the best approach to teaching maths and to teaching children to read. Children should be taught general knowledge, history and the geography of this country and of the world. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, such matters should ultimately be for schools, but that does not mean to say that Members of Parliament and shadow Ministers should not take part in such debates and let the public contribute to them.
One organisation that takes part in the debate is the Campaign for Real Education. It has commented on the clause. It said:
Sir Jim Rose recommended that primary schools should do away with the subject-based curriculum and subsume the subjects into 5 areas of learning.
It went on to say:
This goes completely against the advice of good teachers who emphasise that the subjects provide structure for essential knowledge and content.
The documentation and Jim Roses report are defensive about the accusation of subsuming subjects, and the final report goes to great lengths to deny that, particularly following the outcry that greeted the interim report. However, the wording of the six areas did not change between the interim report and the final report, and it is that wording that will last if we implement clause 10 when Jim Rose is long forgotten.
The wording of the clause changes subject to areas of learning, but we believe that subjects matter. The constructivist approach is that learning how to learn is more important than subject content. It asserts that generic learning skills can be taught and then applied to subjects laterI am not sure when, but later. But the only genuine cross-curricular skill is literacy. How to read and write can be improved as we write a history essay or write up a geography field trip or a chemistry experiment, but learning French is different from learning maths or physics. The mind is developed by learning and understanding more and more concepts, by remembering more and more pieces of information and by developing knowledge, not by being told how and what to think.
As Kevin Donnelly writes,
An essential aspect of what it means to be educated is to be taught traditional subjects like mathematics, history, science, literature and music. Such subjects have evolved over hundreds of years and each is unique in the way it defines how we experience and understand the world and our place in it.
Another influential book is The Schools We Need: And Why We Dont Have Them by E. D. Hirsch. He is critical of the objectives approach to the curriculum. He said that, in that approach,
One first defines a few highly general objectives, and one then carries them through several grades
he is an American academic; he is referring to years. As his objectives are quite general, they are then repeated each yearthe theory being that they are taught in increasing depth. Hirsch argues that that leads to repetition and boredom as children learn the same issue over and over again in increasing depth. It also leads to gaps in childrens knowledge as the broad objectives result in some subject content being taught over and over again while correspondingly, other important areas are missed out altogether.
Amendment 238 would undo clause 10 and return to what is in the 2002 Act, with the exception that languages would be put in as a core subject for key stage 2, together with English, maths and science. It emphasises that music should be a separate foundation subject, rather than being subsumed into understanding the arts. Finally, amendment 50 would take out the Henry VIII clause that gives the Secretary of State the power under secondary legislation to amendment the curriculum which has, until now, been amended only by primary legislation.

Annette Brooke: I find this debate slightly odd in that I appear to agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, although I obviously come to this from a totally different perspective. I will speak to the whole clause, but I will not repeat myself later, Mr. Betts.
I do not think that we should restrict ourselves to cross-curricular work for every school, although I appreciate that some excellent work is going on in our schools, where inspired head teachers have managed to work around the straitjacket of the national curriculum and introduce innovative teaching programmes and methods that suit their children. Personally, I would probably choose a school with something similar to the Rose curriculum, but I cannot accept that we start imposing that on everybody. I am content to let hon. Members have a choice of schools that are subject-based. I come at this from a different perspective, but we agree on the point that the head teacher and the school should have more freedom. However, we risk taking away one straitjacket and starting to put on another, and that is what I object to.
I hope that our position is clear. In amendment 182 we have tried to convey the point that the governing body and head teacher should have responsibility. In amendment 183, we want to stop a situation where the Secretary of State can start fine-tuning the curriculum from the centre on an almost annual basis. We have suggested that that should happen not more than once each Parliament, so that we can review its effectiveness.
Coming from a totally different perspective, I have some difficulty in supporting the amendment, but I am reassured that we in Opposition think that there should be a choice for parents and a minimum curriculum entitlement that can be interpreted in different ways by different head teachers in different communities. It is important to have something that is right for children, and I am not supporting the full Rose review for those reasons.
Perhaps it is important to look again at what the Children, Schools and Families Committee said about the national curriculumthis point is picked up in the next group of amendments, so I will not repeat it. The report stated:
We take the view that the main purpose of a national curriculum is to set out clearly and simply a minimum entitlement for every child..
That is important. It goes on:
We are not convinced by the proposed Programmes of Study for the primary curriculum put forward in the interim report of the Rose Review, which seem unnecessarily complex..
I agree with both those statements.

Ken Purchase: I do not favour a dogmatic approach to teaching, nor do I believe that many different schools offering many different platforms of learning is an appropriate way for urban areas in our cities to take advantage of the choice that is being suggested. I favour a more eclectic approach to teaching.
I listened with interest when the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned Piagetan interesting name to bring up. He may correct me, but I recall that the essence of Piagets view is that children develop to think in the abstract at different ages. It is different for boys and girls. From the ages of five to 15, children develop an ability to think in an abstract way. Given that teachers work with children who develop rapidly and those who develop slowly, those who take a great leap and those who do not get off the diving board, an eclectic approach to teaching seems to be necessary. That approach would give children, particularly in tightly knit urban boroughs such as mine, the opportunity to go to a school and get an appropriate teaching method so that they can reach their potential.
I urge both Opposition parties to recognise the relatively dogmatic view in the way in which we teach subjects, rather than areas of learning. I appreciate that it is not a totally dogmatic view. The hon. Gentleman made an excellent case for his point of view. However, I think eclecticism should rule the day in the teaching platform so that our children get the maximum possible choice in the school that they attend to enhance their abilities.

Caroline Flint: I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Betts. I referred back to the evidence that Sir Jim Rose gave before the Committee and was struck by his comments about how the primary curriculum can take what is learned at the foundation stage for early years into the structured secondary stage. As we all know, there is a play-based approach for the foundation years, which teaches communication, language and literacy; personal, social and emotional development; physical development; knowledge and understanding of the world; creative development; and problem solving, reasoning and numeracy. How the transition into primary is made is important. Children make the transition out of foundation and at the end of year 6, they make the transition into years 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, which are obviously more subject-based.
We are all concerned about education and how it is delivered. For me, good teaching is the key component, whatever the system. In most primary schools, the most important person is the generalist teacher and there might be a classroom assistant and specialists who can be called on in certain areas.
Sir Jims review of primary education reassured me about the emphasis on numeracy and literacy. I also felt encouraged that primary schools give some of the best examples of where subjects are studied in cross-curricular experiences, which can better engage children and help them to understand just how arithmetic, for example, might apply in other settingsthat is not always the case.
We need to think about this age group and the transitions they make from foundation into primary and onwards into secondary. We must bear that in mind when we try to impose on them a certain approach, such as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton with his more secondary view of education.

Edward Timpson: I agree with the right hon. Ladys point about good teachers providing good quality education for all our children. Does she think that the programmes of study we have heard about, with their 84 objectives for teachers to fulfil, will help to provide good teaching, or are they too prescriptive?

Caroline Flint: My understanding, from the evidence witnesses gave the Committee a few weeks ago, is that while there might always be room for manoeuvre to see whether the 84 objectives should be reduced, the number has actually been reduced since previous Governments were in power, when the system was far more prescriptive. That was the evidence we were given. I would not say no if asked whether some of the indicators and prescriptive ideas could be reduced further, but I think that they are going in the right direction. One of the opportunities of looking at a cross-curricular theme is that it might allow a classroom teacherwe are usually talking about one classroom teacher and perhaps 30 childrento think about how those areas can be blended together.
The example we were given in evidence was that of Charles Darwin. Many schools approach their targets or indicators by combining the science element of Darwins work with the historical context in which he lived, creative writing and art. As I understand it, we are going in the right direction on indicators, which is down, and that is welcome.

Vernon Coaker: Some interesting comments have been made. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton accused us of having an ideological obsession with one form of teaching and then went on to present his own ideology regarding what should constitute a primary curriculum. I totally accept that there is a clash of views about that, and I do not use the word ideology against him in a disparaging sense, because we are just talking about different views on how things should be done, but let us take the debate beyond that. It seems to me that if people accuse each other of ideological fanaticism with regard to how the primary curriculum should be organised or taught, it leads to a sterile debate. I would not accuse him of that, except perhaps a bit with regard to phonics, but not on anything else. I take your point, Mr. Betts, about going a little broader than the specific amendments because we will not have a clause stand part debate.
Our approach is the result of an extensive review by Sir Jim Rose, who impressed me, frankly, during our evidence session. I have been impressed by him before, and although not everyone would agree with his evidence, I thought that it was clear and that he made a good philosophical, as well as practical, case for what he was suggesting. We are, of course, not alone: since 2005, eight countries have reorganised their primary curriculum around areas of learning rather than around subjects, including France, Spain, Germany and New Zealand, so it is not as though we were pursuing a rip-roaring Government initiative on which we were alone in the globe.
With regard to the level of support, Mick Brookes, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, has said:
This makes me want to go back to teaching.
The Independent Schools Council has said:
Overall the recommendations reflect current thinking and practice in our schools. In general terms, much of what is proposed is already happening in the sector.
I will not upset my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, by quoting from the General Teaching Council for England. The Historical Association has stated that it
has always maintained that the national curriculum as it stands is over-prescribed, and this is detrimental to teaching and learning. We fully support a modified framework that supports the development of a less prescriptive and more flexible National Curriculum.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley is right that the number of objectives in the national curriculum used to be around 280. It sounds like a good debating point, but we are proposing a reduction from 280 to 84, so there is a reduction in the number of objectives.
We talked a lot about maths. Sir Peter Williams, who carried out the independent review of maths in primary schools in 2008, has said that Jim Roses recommendations will give teachers more freedom and flexibility. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, made about the need for flexibility. It was the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole made, too. Jim Roses recommendations will give teachers more freedom and flexibility to use maths in exciting and creative ways in the classroom. That is the important bit, because that is where the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton thinks that it is a question of either/orwe either have subjects where everyone learns how to count, or areas of learning where no one does anything except play around with dice, while rolling around in the sand; that is his caricature. However, Sir Peter Williams said:
Jim Roses recommendations will give teachers more freedom and flexibility to use maths in exciting and creative ways in the classroom, as well as focusing on the basics of times tables, mental maths and fractions.
There is not a choice between teaching young people to count and them enjoying themselves and having fun. Of course it is important that the basics, as everyone calls themreading, writing and countingare done in primary school. However, we think that reorganising them in the way that we propose will allow less prescription and more flexibility for the teacher to teach in a way that they feel is appropriate to the learning of the young people in the classroom, which is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East.
It is a caricature to say that our primary schools do not teach young people to count, read or write. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that there are people who do not learn their times tables, but there is a subject-based curriculum in place now. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, it is a question of good teaching, the appropriateness of the curriculum and ensuring that the basics are there. However, there are other things about maths, as Jim Rose pointed out; that is why he talked of mathematical understanding, as well as of maths. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that literacy was the only thing that he could think of that was appropriate in many other areas, but I would have thought that numeracy was another skill much used across the curriculum.

Nick Gibb: The Minister cited third parties that supported his policy. However, when he quoted them, we saw that what they supported was the increased flexibility and reduced prescription. Although the clause may reduce the number of objectives, there are still 84 of themthe system is still prescriptiveand no one seems to be supporting that aspect. Other than increased flexibility, what is it about the outcomes-based, areas of learning approach, which France, Germany and New Zealand have adopted, that is an improvement on the current system?

Vernon Coaker: That is like the hon. Gentleman answering his own question. I cannot answer, Flexibility or The fact that it is not over-prescriptive, but if I do not say that, what is the answer going to be?
The fact is that it depends. The approach that we propose will allow people to develop their professionalism and feel that they can teach in a way that is appropriate to the needs of their particular class, rather than feelas some dothat they are in a straitjacket. It will also allow teachers to teach in the classroom in a way that establishes links across a range of topics, rather than just teaching subjects in compartments. Many teachers, professionals and parents feel that that is a better approach.
I know that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will have read about the areas of learning. It is important to put on the record, in case we are accused of not believing that focused subject content is important, that the documents on each area refer to the need for focused subject teaching. Indeed, in the document on mathematical understanding, the first sentence states:
Learning in this area should include an appropriate balance of focused subject teaching and well-planned opportunities to use, apply and develop knowledge and skills across the whole curriculum.
We are not saying that because we are talking about areas of learning, subject content is not important. However, that is the caricature that the hon. Gentleman seeks to portray.
I would like to say, as an opening, before I deal with the specific amendments, that the clause has been welcomed by the profession and many professionals. The Rose review is good, and it will mean the return of flexibility to our primary schools, which is what classroom teachers in schools and communities up and down our country have been asking for.

Nick Gibb: The Minister almost implies that he agrees that subjects should be taught, in which case why not leave the legislation as it is in the Education Act 2002an Act piloted by his Government? Why not leave that provision and scrap all the prescriptive lesson plans and programmes of study? We object to those programmes because they promulgate a particular ideology of education. If the Minister went back to the wording of the 2002 Act and scrapped the programmes of study, we would have agreement.

Vernon Coaker: On the programmes of study, people will want to know what it is we are requiring people to learn under each of the headings. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should simply say, Do maths, English, history and geography? The areas of learning for the first and second key stages are laid out in the Bill, which mentions:
understanding English, communication and languages...scientific and technological understanding
and so on. Is he suggesting we should not have a programme of study? That we should not specify what people should learn? I know what the hon. Gentleman will say to methat I have not got a clue what pupils will be doing under any of the programmes, and his amendments will say, We need a bit of meat on the bone. We need a bit of detail on the proposals.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to enable a proper, responsive debate. However, I am suggesting, as I said in my opening remarks, that the programmes of study say the same thing year after year:
to recognise how authors of moving-image and multimodal texts use different combinations of words, images and sounds to create effects and make meaning.
Later in the primary curriculum, the programme is:
to evaluate structural and organisational features, including the use of different presentational devices, layouts and combinations of formats, and their effects.
It is the same thing year after year, as the programme becomes more sophisticated. That is the problem. I would not want to take away all content from the curriculum, but let us set out in simple terms the knowledge and skills that children should have by a certain year group in school, and not have these amorphous, over-complicated phrases that can mean all kinds of things to different people and will lead to a) a certain type of education and b) potential huge gaps in childrens knowledge and skills.

Vernon Coaker: I just do not accept that. I know the hon. Gentleman will have read the document. I go back to the point about good teaching made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. The document lays out the essential knowledge and what the skills should be. It lays out the breadth of learning. Every professional to whom we talk recommends organising teaching around areas of learning, which show how the themes, topics and skills link together in a cross-curricular way. That frees up the curriculum and allows teachers to teach in an appropriate way without taking away the importance of knowing facts, of knowledge and of the basic skills that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton believes in.
Mr. Gibbrose

Vernon Coaker: I will take one more intervention before we move on, or you may feel that we are straying too far, Mr. Betts.

Nick Gibb: The Minister is talking about pedagogy. Issues about cross-curriculum teaching are for the teacher to decide; they should not come out of a Government report, Government legislation and Government programmes of study. These are pedagogical matters for teachers. Policy makers and Government should ensure that all children have a minimum level of knowledge and skills. That is what we policy makers should be doing, not telling teachers whether to use cross-curricular or group teaching, or circle time. All those are matters for teachers, and we should keep out of that area.

Vernon Coaker: That is an amazing comment. The hon. Gentleman was continually telling people that they should be teaching phonics. [Interruption.] The national curriculum and areas of learning laid out in the Rose review promise an exciting time for schools, and have been broadly welcomed.
Let me deal quickly with the specific amendments. Amendment 50 would remove a power relating to the key stage 1 and key stage 2 curriculum. That power, which is in the Education Act 2002, relates to the primary curriculum. Before the proposed curriculum areas could be amended by order, the Secretary of State would be required to refer any proposal to the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, so that it could undertake statutory consultation with head teachers, governing bodies, organisations representing school interests and other appropriate bodies. The Secretary of State would then have to consult on the draft order before laying it before the House. Without that power, any future changes to the areas of learning, no matter how small, would require primary legislation. To change one word in the title of even one area of learning would require primary legislation.
The checks and balances for when the curriculum is amended by order are more than sufficient, even though they are not in the Bill. Furthermore, the amendment would introduce the anomaly that the existing power to amend the curriculum by order would continue in relation to key stages 3 and 4, but not key stages 1 and 2.
Amendments 52 and 54taken with amendment 238 fail to deal with the feeling of overload among primary teachers trying to teach high levels of literacy and numeracy and the 10 subjects of the national curriculum. The rigid retention of subject fails to address the need for smoother transition from the early years foundation stage to key stage 1, which was a good point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. The six areas of learning in the Bill build on the early-years foundation stage and will help to prevent the sudden change that can happen at the age of five, with the move from play-based provision of early years areas of learning and development to 10 separate subjects of the primary curriculum.
The proposed areas of learning continue to incorporate traditional subjects, which is at the heart of the debate between the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and myself, such as English, maths, science, history and geography, particularly during the middle and later stages of primary. However, they also provide greater opportunitiesthis is the key differenceto strengthen and deepen subject knowledge through well-planned cross-curricular studies, where children can use and apply subject knowledge across the curriculum. The six areas of learning included in the Bill have been subject to extensive consultation and development, and together they constitute a broad and balanced curriculum and have had strong support during consultation.
Some 71 per cent. of respondents to QCDAs consultation agreed that areas of learning helped children to make useful links between related subjects. In a National Foundation for Educational Research survey of teachers, 72 per cent. of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that areas of learning would improve manageability for classroom teachers. On amendment 182, it will, of course, be the responsibility of head teachers to develop the curriculum for the areas of learning to meet the needs of their children, which gives some of the flexibility that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole wanted. That has always been the responsibility of the governing body and the head teacher of every maintained school, and it will remain so. That process includes ensuring access to the curriculum for children who may be learning English as an additional language, children with special educational needs and children with disabilities.
The new primary curriculum is not only a better match to the early years foundation stage and what already occurs in many primary schools; it is also less prescriptive and more flexible and allows schools to tailor the curriculum to meet the needs of all pupils in their care. Some 70 per cent. of respondents to the consultation agreed that the curriculum will give the schools the flexibility to adapt the curriculum to meet the needs of all pupils, and 69 per cent. agreed that it is less prescriptive than the existing one.
On amendment 183, we believe that reviews should be carried out only when it is absolutely necessary. As recommended by Sir Jim Rose, it is our intention to have regular and planned curriculum reviews over time. The recent review of the primary curriculum, to which the clause relates, was the first review for a decade following only two other reviews of the primary curriculum since the national curriculum was introduced more than 20 years ago. The new secondary curriculum introduced in 2008 contained the first significant changes since 2000. We believe that schools and pupils should have periods of curriculum stability, but, nevertheless, the curriculum should be dynamic and involved, so it can meet the changing needs of our children in a rapidly changing world.
The clause is very important. I know that I have strayed wider than the amendments, but a useful and interesting debate has resulted from doing so. All the evidence from the consultation indicates that the profession agrees with the direction in which the clause is taking us. It will be seen as a significant and substantial change. In the light of that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. I do not often say that, but if he presses his amendments to a vote, it is important that we vote against in this case.

Nick Gibb: It has been an important debate, highlighting the philosophical issues that bedevil education. Ideology has bedevilled education in this country and in the United States since the 1920s, coming to Britain in the 1950s in particular. For 50 years or more we have had an ideological debate about education, the consequence of which has been damage to our state education system. Talking to educationists in other parts of Europenot those, incidentally, cited by the Minister in adopting such an approach to primary educationthey find it extraordinary how the British state education system has gone down that route.
For many decades children were not taught to read using the tried-and-tested method of phonics, common throughout the world, whereby children are taught the alphabetic code and how to blend letters together and to decode words. Extraordinarily, I was not taught using that methodpeople of my generation and younger were notbut by the look and say or whole language method, in which children are meant to absorb words by being exposed to them, with words being repeated over and over again. Bright children could pick up learning to read in that way, but less able children could not, which is why in 1996I realise that was towards the end of the last Conservative Administrationa National Audit Office report showed that 23 per cent. of adults in this country had literacy rates that prevented them from being able to read the dosage on an aspirin bottle. That is the consequence of 50 years of a constructivist education ideology, which I believe has been hugely damaging to our education system.

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and am aware that perhaps I should not distract, but I want to make a point about the difference. I hear a rigidity in his tone and would like a reassurance that in putting forward the case for synthetic phonics, he appreciates the exceptions, deaf children being a big one, and others with some form of hearing impairment. It is important that where children do not respond to synthetic phonics, other methods are used as well. I appreciate that for a large number of children phonics is a good scheme, but there are exceptions. Also, children who learn by look and say in their pre-school years should certainly not be held up by phonics if they are already reading fluently when they go to school.

Nick Gibb: On the latter point, if children are reading, of course they should never be held back, but pushed ahead and encouraged to read ever more sophisticated books and texts. I absolutely agree. I do not agree with the approach that prevailed in the 1970s, when parents could be criticised by teachers for allowing their children to race ahead and learn to read. That approach was absolutely wrong. Every child should be stretched to the best of their ability. The hon. Lady is also right about a small percentage of children having particular neurological conditions who have a problem with any method in learning to read, and phonics is not the panacea for such children.
However, the point that I am making is a wider one about the constructivist approach, which also applies in mathswe have a severe problem with maths in this country. That same figure of 23 per cent. in literacy also applies in mathsaccording to the survey done by the NAO in 1996, 23 per cent. of adults could not add two figures together to come to the right number.

Caroline Flint: In many respects, I have a lot of sympathy with the concerns, which I think are sincere, being put forward by the hon. Gentleman. My view, which may be a perception, is that while there is a long way to go, actually the debate between phonics and real books has moved on in some respects. Certainly in the schools that I go to in my constituency, and having brought up three children myself in the past 20 years, what I have seen is much more of a mixture of phonics and books. We had the basics, but we are not trying to displace the enjoyment that can go along with itreading stories and so forth is part of that. That is what is happening in most schools I know. If it is not being delivered properly, there might be a problem with the teachers in the schools not doing what they need to do, and the head teachers not delivering what they need to deliver. I do know whether the problem is because of the curriculum or because the teaching is not as good as it should be, and I have no truck with that.
I consider that the debate has moved on. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about maths. The Ofsted report showed that, while people were being taught to add up, in some cases when it came to a real life situation and applying that learning, it was not happening. We must have a mixture of skills and knowledge, and apply it to scenarios outside the classroom. We have been moving towards that, and such an area of learning will allow us to develop towards it even more.

Nick Gibb: I was not terribly impressed by the particular Ofsted report that I cited. It did not properly reflect the real problem of teaching maths in our schools. I shall pick up on the hon. Ladys point first. Children enjoy reading when they can do it. They are not taught the basic skill of how to translate the jumble of things on a page into a word and still struggle with it, yet they are taught to memorise passages and pretend to read it back to teachers. Seven-year-olds have read to me a text from Winnie-the-Pooh, but the word Pooh was not on the page; it was just Winnie. Where did they get that word from? Clearly, they had memorised it. That is the problem with the look and say approach. Some children just memorise and do not learn the skill of decoding, so when they come across a new word they struggle with it.
Phonics can be enjoyable. When children learn to do it and enjoy it, they can go straight into reading books. The key thing about the reading books is that they must not go beyond the phonic knowledge of the child. If the child had only learnt the basic consonants and the simple vowels, such as those in The cat sat on the mat, fine, but if the rhyme went on and said, The cat sat on the mat and saw an elephant, and the children were encouraged to guess the word elephant because they had not learnt the ph sound, all the education psychologists at universities say that that would damage the childrens ability to learn to read. They must acquire the skill to decode. When people play the piano, they learn that the middle C looks different on the stave than it does on the piano. Until children are told such things and practise them, and they become automatic in the brain, they will struggle to play the piano. The same theory applies to how reading is taught.
I shall now deal with rigidity, to which the hon. Lady referred. I accept that nothing in what I say is meant to be rigid. It could be that research from the States and about Lanarkshire and Dunbartonshire is wrong, and that I am wrong, and that it is not best practice. There might be an even better system of teaching children to read than synthetic phonics, but we need to debate the issues fully in public and not allow the debate to be swept under the carpet, as it has been for 50 years. We must have the debate openly and let parents choose the philosophical approach that they want for their children. That is my partys approach to education.
When people have money and can choose their education, they tend to go for such an approach to teach their children to read. The problem is in the state sector and the levers of the state seem to be held by people who want to impose their ideology on our education system, which is what has been so damaging in the past 50 years. The clause applies to our schools a particular approach to primary education. If the Minister was just increasing flexibility and wanted subjects to be taught as subjects, it would be hard to disagree with him, but that is not what is laid down in the clause nor what the programmes of study have said either. Given that we have had a wide debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 148, in clause 10, page 12, leave out lines 18 to 21.

Clive Betts: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 159, in clause 10, page 12, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert
shall set down a minimum curriculum entitlement for all children..
Amendment 48, in clause 10, page 12, line 19, leave out programmes of study and insert curriculum objectives.
Amendment 150, in clause 10, page 12, line 20, after arrangements, insert
(the validity and viability of such arrangements to be reviewed from time to time).
Amendment 160, in clause 10, page 12, line 22, leave out subsection (3) and insert
(3) The Minimum Curriculum Entitlement shall be determined by the Secretary of State, after consultation with all relevant bodies, and shall be reviewed not more than once in each Parliament..
Amendment 193, in clause 10, page 12, line 41, leave out 84A(3) and insert 84A(3)(a) to (e).
Amendment 51, in clause 10, page 12, line 43, leave out programmes of study and insert curriculum objectives.
Amendment 161, in clause 10, page 13, line 5, at end add
(3) The Secretary of State shall review the validity and viability of assessment arrangements relating to the primary curriculum, and publish the results of this review no later than 31 December 2010..

Nick Gibb: Amendments 148, 48 and 51 would remove the requirement to specify programmes of study in the national curriculum. That is where the national curriculum has gone wrong. What the public, parents and policy makers have always wanted from the national curriculum was a simple statement of the core knowledge and concept of pupils needs to be taught in each subject, each year. It is as simple as that; a de minimis level to ensure that children are not missing out on key elements of their education. Even with a measure that, as the Minister says, purports to reduce prescription, we still have a hugely prescriptive set of objectives. There are 84 for primary English, and 76 for primary maths. They prescribe not curriculum content but an approach to education that is controversial.
Let me take the Understanding English programme of study as an example. This has objectives that run from E1 to E24 for the early part of primary school, from M1 to M29 for the middle years of primary school, and from L1 to L31 for the later years. Among the early objectives for four, five and six-year-olds, E3 is,
to reflect on how talk varies in different circumstances and for different listeners.
E15 is
to identify the characteristic features of texts with different purposes.
For the middle yearseight and nine-year-oldsM15 is,
to recognise how authors of moving-image and multimodal texts use different combinations of words, images and sounds to create effects and make meaning.
I am not sure whether the phrase make meaning does actually make meaning. In later years for 10 and 11-year-olds, L15 is,
to evaluate structural and organisational features, including the use of different presentational devices, layouts and combinations of formats, and their effects.
John McIntosh was the headmaster of the London Oratory school, which includes a junior school. He summed up the issue when he gave evidence to the Committee:
I feel that the over-prescription and regulation of the curriculumnot just in primary but across the boardhas to a degree led to what I might call the deprofessionalisation of teachers, who are now expected to behave in an almost robotic way in accepting orders from QCA.[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2010; c. 84, Q8.]
John McIntoshs views appear to have been confirmed by the answer given by Sue Barratt, the primary head teacher who served on Jim Roses review. She said:
We do need the objectives, to drive us as we take things through, and for progression, moving the child through from key stage 1 to key stage 2 and key stage 3..[Official Report, Children, Schools and Families Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2010; c. 85, Q10.]

Vernon Coaker: I am trying to understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We have programmes of study, and he gave some examples of those. What is a curriculum objective? If curriculum objectives were to be laid out for English, how many would he expect to have? Does he have any examples to give to the Committee, so that we can understand the difference between the sorts of things that have been laid out in the programmes of study, and the sorts of things that would presumably be laid out under the subject-based curriculum that he favours? Presumably, content, skills, knowledge and some sort of objectives would have to be laid out. How many of those would the hon. Gentleman expect to have, and what would they be?

Nick Gibb: They would be very few and they would relate to the reading ability of the child, their writing ability, and the level of words and degree of difficulty to which the child should be spelling. In subjects such as geography, we would ask specialists to specify at what age they think people should know certain things and what is important. However, it would be things such as the rivers of the United Kingdom or the countries of Europe. I remember learning the map of Europe by heart in what is now year six, and my knowledge of Europe today is based on that. If the Minister wants to look into the issue further, he could look at the core knowledge curriculum developed by E. D. Hirsch in America and the core knowledge schools. That curriculum sets out a simple set of knowledge, concepts and skills that children should acquire in each year of state education in the United States, and it is very effective.

Vernon Coaker: What is the difference between curriculum objectives and programmes of study?

Nick Gibb: The programmes of study, as drafted by the Government, are based on an outcomes-based educational system that drafts them in very broad terms that are the same for several years running. I would give examples if I had the right piece of paper in front of me, but in the science curriculum, for example, it will say, the development of life and there will be the development of life in each of the years. However, because it does not say that children need to learn about seeds, mammals and then reptiles, children could often learn the same facts about seeds in each year but in increasing depth. That is the point; issues are being repeated over and over again. That is seen in history, which has already moved to a competence-based approach in key stages 3 and 4. Very often, we find that children are learning the same period of history over and over again, but they are learning a different historical skill in each of the years, which may or may not be useful. What they are not doing is learning a broader part of the history of this country and the world. They are learning the same period over while they develop their historical skills. That is the difference in approach.

Annette Brooke: Do the curriculum objectives apply to academies?

Nick Gibb: No, we have made it clear that schools that opt out or become academies will not be subject to the national curriculum. The national curriculum should be for schools that remain within the maintained sector.

Lynda Waltho: I have been there not just as a parent but as a teacher. I was trained in the middle years, so I have taught in both primary and secondary schools. What the hon. Gentleman talks about sounds even more prescriptive than the things he has been denouncing. Am I right in assuming that what he is saying is that on 2 February, all six-year-olds will do page 27 of such and such a book about the Tudors, or about the sources of rivers? It sounds even more prescriptive than what he has denounced.

Nick Gibb: No, I am not saying that at all; I am saying the opposite. As policy makers, we are the people who levy the taxes from the public and who provide a free education system at the point of use, which is very expensive. As policy makers, we are trying to say what our education system needs to provide. The system in clause 10 and in the programmes of study that come with it promulgates a very particular approach to education that I have described in my previous remarks. It is an outcomes-based education system, which has been tried and is in place in some parts of the world. We can assess the results of the system if we wish, but as policy makers we should be aware of what is happeningof what the system is doing. The provision has been carefully drafted so that it ticks all the boxes for people such as me. None the less, it is still an outcomes-based education system with broad curriculum objectives. What I am saying is that as policy makers, we need to ensure that young people leave school educated, and that we should debate among ourselves and with the general public what it means to be educated. Do we want children to leave school illiterate?

Caroline Flint: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about primary school?

Nick Gibb: Yes. Well, this debate goes wider than primary school, but we are focused on that. Do we want children to leave primary school illiterate? Do we want them to know nothing about the continents or countries of the world? Is that something we want to preserve for secondary school? Do we want them to know the rivers, long division, long multiplication and equations? Do we want them to know how to add and take away fractions? The role of policy makers is to say that by the age of 11, children should know certain things. That does not mean to say that I think they should learn fractions during the afternoon of 4 June. What I am saying is that by the time they leave primary school, or by the time they are nine, they should know or should have been taught certain things. It may be that they are taught by brilliant teachers and still cannot remember certain things.
There is a role for policy makers in Parliament, and therefore Government, to set out a minimum of what children should know by the time they leave primary school. That is all I am saying. Teachers should be able to teach in whatever way they see fit. If they think they can teach by standing on their heads, good for them. If they want to use cross-curriculum methods or an outcomes-based approach, that is fine, so long as when children leave primary school they are reading at a sufficiently fluent level and have reached a particular level of maths. I do not see how anyone could object to that.

Lynda Waltho: I do not object to it, but it seems even more prescriptive than what the hon. Gentleman has denounced. It is not just about children coming out of school with a list of things they can do; they should have learned in a way in which they can apply all of that. For teachers and parents, from my experience, a holistic approach is best, rather than a prescriptive shopping list for each subject that children come out with at the other end.
Recently, the Children, Schools and Families Committee took evidence about young people going to university. According to it, although they may know certain things, they cannot apply their knowledge because they have been taught how to get the right answers, not about thinking and applying knowledge. Part of what teachersand, to a certain extent, parentsdo is to help children and young people function as a result of their education and apply their knowledge and skills, rather than knowing a list of geography and history facts.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady is talking about pedagogical skills. That should be left to the professionalism of teachers. We can debate those issues, but they should not be part of a national curriculum. That is why I object to the programmes of study; they are very pedagogical.
On applying maths, the evidence says that in the early years in primary schools, children should acquire the basic skills, such as how to multiply 30 million by 10p and come up with £3 million as the answer. They should be learning not necessarily real-life examples but algorithms and techniques, such as, in order to get 10 per cent. of a large figure, the decimal point can just be moved one point to the left. Once those basic skills have been acquired, they can be applied as children get older and acquire higher order skills.
What is happening is that people are not acquiring the basic skills and are having to learn them in secondary education, when they should be beginning to learn how to think. Therefore, when they arrive at university, they have not learned the higher order skills. That is the problem I am trying to highlight.

Caroline Flint: I have looked at the areas of study and although I agree that some of the wording could be in plainer English, I think they are helpful to teachers. For example, the part covering history and geography talks about geographical features. The River Don flows past a school in my Don Valley constituency. We have Conisbrough castle, which Harold passed by on his way to the battle of Hastings. Sir Walter Scott wrote Ivanhoe at the Boat inn. This was all in my maiden speech, so hon. Members can look it up. My point is that the skills identified in the document can be used and applied locally.
Coal mining is clearly the main historical industry of the past 100 years in Doncaster, although the situation has changed. The environment, the houses and the landscape have all been affected by that industry. In inner-city areas such as Coventry and London, the effects of the second world war can be seen on the landscape, for example in places where bombing took place.
It is not clear to what extent the hon. Gentleman is trying to prescribe what teachers should teach, whether in history or geography, and whether the immediate environment is to be used as the stepping-stone at primary level, which will be the catalyst to spark young peoples imaginations for more generic learning down the road. I used to have the skill of being able to recite every king and queen of England. I will not attempt to do that today. I used to think it was a pretty interesting party skill, but it did not tell me any more of what I needed to know about the history of England.

Nick Gibb: I do not disagree with the right hon. Lady. There is nothing wrong with schools taking children out and showing them local historical sites; in fact it is commendable. Of course they should do that, but they should not just go to see local things in Don Valley. They should know about the battle of Hastings, which took place at the other end of England. They should know what was happening in Europe.

David Laws: I really do not understand the Conservative partys position on the issue of core skills and core knowledge versus the ability to opt out. An e-mail has come into my hands exchanged between the Liberal Democrats and one of the hon. Gentlemans partys advisers, in which the Conservatives make it clear that that they would allow providers to set their own curriculum. The question that went back to the Conservatives from us was, Even if it does not include a proper narrative of British history? and their answer was, Yes, they could opt out of the national curriculum. How on earth can there be fundamental, core skills if some schools can simply opt out?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two parts of our policy. Once a school has opted out of the system and becomes an academy[Interruption] not immediatelyand new providers come in, at that point, there will be sufficient capacity in the system to give parents a genuine choice, which is key. If someone from Sweden sets up a school in this country, they have to attract parents to the idea of sending their child to that school. They will only go to that school if they believe it is offering the curriculum that theyparents who now have a genuine choice; in other words, those who have sufficient money to have a choicewant. It is our belief that they will choose schools that provide a high-quality education. However, they should also be free to send their children to progressive schools with the Kunskapsskolan or Bedales type of approach. However, I believe strongly that most parents will want to send their children to a school that provides rigorous academic education, where children leave fully educated and skilled in reading and have a good grasp of maths.

David Laws: What on earth has choice got to do with the presence of one academy? There could be an academy serving a town where there is no choice at all, and four ordinary maintained comprehensive schools offering the potential for real choice. The hon. Gentlemans policy would impose a monopoly of one provision on a town that relies on one academy, but not allow choice to operate where there are four secondary schools.

Nick Gibb: If that scenario develops, there will be a lot of parental dissatisfaction. Therefore, a new provider will come in. [Interruption.] They will. That is the essence of our proposal: we will make it much easier for schools to establish by removing the bureaucratic hurdles that schools will have to go through and the rule on surplus places. We believe that as a consequence of those reforms, many new providers will come in and provide things like the Harris academies, which give a first-class education. Their school in Crystal Palace was graded by Ofsted as perfect in everything that it examined. I believe that our system will lead to a huge opening up and diversity of providers, who will have to provide the kind of education that parents want for their children.

David Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so patient. He will be aware that at the moment, academies are at the forefront of schools using their flexibility to drop core subjects such as history a year earlier than was thought to be specified in the existing national curriculum. If an existing academy decided to drop history earlierat age 10, nine or eightwhat would he do?

Nick Gibb: Existing academies are subject to funding agreements that will prevent them from doing so. However, we believe that there will be a rapid increase in new providers coming into our system. I repeat: if schools are not providing the type and quality of education demanded by parents, a new provider will come in. It will be easier for new providers to come in, and they will begin to provide the education demanded by parents. Children will drift away from schools that are not teaching history beyond the age of 11, toward those that do. At the moment, we have a system that is letting down significant segments of our population, and I believe that this is the only way in which we can tackle underperforming schools in our system in the long run.

David Laws: If that is the hon. Gentlemans partys policy, I urge him to think again. He is a strong advocate of a core curriculum. Is he really saying that the only thing he is relying on to protect young people where there is potentially one school in a catchment area is the market mechanism? It could be four or five years before another school is established. A young person could have missed the opportunity to get an education in precisely the type of core subjects that the hon. Gentleman has always argued are important.

Nick Gibb: But if schools want to do what the hon. Gentleman is proposingspeaking to many heads, I doubt that they will want to do sothey will probably be deficient in many other areas, in schools that are currently not providing a high-quality education to parents. The hon. Gentleman is painting a scenario of extremis, and I do not believe that we will go down that route, because we are dealing ultimately with a profession and its members are professional people.

Martin Linton: Having visited a Kunskapsskolan school in Stockholm and, indeed, state schools there, is the hon. Gentleman aware that what creates choice for parents in Sweden is not the provision of those schools, but the over-provision of places? Without keeping places paid for but empty in schools, at huge cost, it is impossible to provide parents with the choice that he implies would be provided. I am eager to hear whether he thinks that any putative Conservative Government would be able to fundwould be willing to fundthe level of over-provision that Swedish schools happily fund to guarantee that parental choice.

Nick Gibb: Yes, there needs to be capacity in the systemthe hon. Gentleman is rightbut there is not a huge cost, because schools are and, under our proposals, would be funded only on the basis of the number of pupils in the school. If a school is undersubscribed compared to its capacity, it will have to close classrooms, turn the radiator off and reduce the staff accordingly. That is the system in Sweden and it works there and does not cost huge amounts. Incidentally, Sweden introduced the system in a recession and it proved very cost-effective. So it is not usually expensive to have money following the pupil and to have surplus places in the system at the same time.

Clive Betts: Order. We are beginning to stray quite a way from the specifics of the amendments before us. Could we now come back to the amendments? We have had an interesting debate, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come back to the amendments.

Nick Gibb: Yes, I will, Mr. Betts; I take your point. The objectives that I read out some time ago, from the programme of study, are all about deconstructing texts. Kevin Donnelly says:
Deconstructing texts not only removes the focus from learning to read with discrimination and understanding, but the joy of reading is destroyed as students are forced to view literature through the narrow prism of what is currently defined as acceptable.
Donnelly goes on to say:
Primary school children instead of reading for enjoyment are told that they must become active meaning makers through critical reading and thinking strategies.
There is that phrase making meaning again, now cited by an Australian academic. These are all in the programmes of study: L10, L15, L16, L19 and L20.
The key to reading in primary schools is to ensure that early on, children have mastered the skills of decoding text effortlessly. As that is being mastered, children can read to learn, read to increase vocabulary and read to increase comprehension. We need to encourage children to read for pleasure and to read book after book after book. That was certainly the approach taken in the elementary school that I went to in Canada, where every time that any child finished a book, up on the wall went another leg of the bookworm. As a seven-year-old, I would have been mortified if I had had to analyse the text. Ensuring that children understand the story is enough at that age.
The amendments would take out the phrase programmes of study and replace it with curriculum objectives. Amendment 193 was inspired by the NASUWT, which said in its brief to members of the Committee:
The proposals put forward in relation to the incorporation of PSHE into the National Curriculum made it clear that the subject orders would not include attainment targets or statutory assessments. Although the Bill does not introduce such provisions, it does create a legal framework within which attainment targets and statutory assessment might be introduced subsequently.
Amendment 193 would apply that approach, not to PSHE but to understanding physical development, health and well-being. Clause 10(2) gives the Secretary of State power to apply attainment targets and programmes of study to all six areas of learning. The amendment would remove that power from the sixth learning areaphysical development, health and well-being, which is not an area that I believe should be examined, not because I was not any good at PE and physical development, but because I do not think that every area of the curriculum needs to be assessed, tested and subject to a target.
Amendment 150 would ensure that the attainment targets and assessment arrangements were kept under review.

Annette Brooke: I started the important debate on the last string of amendments by pointing out that I felt that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil were coming at this issue with a different approach from the Conservatives. With this string of amendments we are running parallel and are never going to meet. That is quite bizarre. Perhaps I should refer to our three key amendments, which I hope have a coherence and consistency that I felt were distinctly lacking in the previous debate.
We believe strongly that there should simply be a minimum curriculum entitlement set down for all children. That truly means giving the freedom to implement that to the head teachers, governors and teachers. It applies to all schools; we do not start picking and choosing. If it is good for academies then, we would argue, it is good for maintained schools, and we think that should be the case. We need a minimum curriculum entitlement, but we do not need prescribed from the centre masses of detail and prescription, of which we have had a lot in the last half hour or so.
Secondly, moving on to amendment 160, we think the minimum curriculum entitlement should be determined by the Secretary of State, but after consultation with all relevant bodies, and it should be reviewed not more than once in each Parliament. We have to put an end to the constant tinkering with the curriculum from the centre.
Amendment 161 looks at assessments in relation to the primary curriculum. We currently have a situation where, perhaps excepting Government Ministers, there is a strong feeling that teaching to the test at key stage 2 is distorting whatever curriculum has been set down. It would not matter if it was areas of learning or subject-based, when we get to year 6 in many schools the key stage 2 test overcomes everything else. In line with moving to a minimum curriculum entitlement, we want a proper review of the validity and viability of assessment processes. We are not just making a cheap political statement of Scrap this, scrap that but looking at it seriously and seeing that the assessment is there for a purpose, to develop our childrens learning rather than becoming an end in itself, with so many objectives, many going back to the school and the local authority. Our children are losing out and not having that rich curriculum necessarily at the moment. In many schools, excellent head teachers and teachers give the necessary leadership and it is possible to have that rich curriculum and survive with the test. We do know examples of where that does not happen, and therefore it is important to have a proper review.

Vernon Coaker: What an illuminating debate this is.

Ken Purchase: Are you sure?

Vernon Coaker: I am sure because it sets out the coherent position that the Rose review laid out for the reform of the curriculum. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton did his best but was left with a paucity of detail. The difference between curriculum objectives and programmes of study is not clear to me. The hon. Gentleman just listed a range of content and said something like, Because it is content and your programmes of study are vague and I do not agree with them, we are going to call them curriculum objectives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge laid out from her experience some of the consequences of the constraints that the hon. Gentleman would place on teachers. The hon. Gentleman chided me earlierwithout using the words flexibility and allowing teachers to teach in the way that they wantand asked the advantage of what we are doing. Essentially, the Rose review allows that return of flexibility, of teacher professionalism, and of allowing schools to determine how best to teach their young people.
The amendments would change the current national curriculum system of setting out programmes of study, assessment arrangements and attainment targets for the areas of learning. They would take out all the programmes of study and therefore the essential knowledge. The hon. Gentleman talked about English; under each of those areas of learning the appropriate essential knowledge is laid out in the national curriculum handbook. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends will be able to read that and see what the essential knowledge is. The key skills for each area of learning are then laid out. The document is concrete and specific. It then lays out the cross-curricular studies, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge rightly pointed out, are absolutely essential. The Rose review and many professionals say that any programme of study rather than some content-based curriculum objective is absolutely essential.
The heart of the debate and of our difference is that the hon. Gentleman says that the content must be laid out as a prescriptive list and we say that of course content is important, but the use of that knowledge and being able to apply it in a cross-curricular way is a key fundamental part of any curriculum reform. The amendments in the first group laid the matter out in one way and this group lays it out in another, but the debate is essentially the same. I am sorry to deal with the matter in this rather restrained way with a lecturing tone, but people read these debates.
As well as essential knowledge, key skills and cross-curricular studies, there is breadth of learning and trying to develop that. Teachers feel excited and inspired because the document is driven not only by contentknowledgebut by skills and understanding. That is all laid out. It then lays out the curriculum progression in three stages: the early stages, years 1 and 2; the middle stages, years 3 and 4; and the later stages, years 5 and 6. It lays out what teachers would reasonably expect of their pupils in those situations. The hon. Gentlemans amendments completely cast that aside and say that none of it is relevant or appropriate, or leads to good teaching or learning, which is at the heart of what we want.
In its place, the hon. Gentleman wants curriculum objectivesa list of content. As soon as someone starts to list content, people will say, You havent included this. To try to make a list of content for history, geography, science, maths, English and so on, in a way that is manageable for the curriculum is difficult. If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the introduction of the national curriculum about 20 years ago, he will remember that the people introducing it were plagued by trying to lay out the content that schools should cover. Reform ever since has been to reduce the amount of content, to make the curriculum manageable for schools.

Lynda Waltho: My hon. Friend has just reminded me of the nightmare introduction of the national curriculum. I remember folders upon folders of different subject areas, which we had to divide down into how many children we had. I literally had to have my clipboard with me so that I ticked something when a child showed some skill or showed that they understood the knowledge, and it was horrendous. Children do not learn in such a way. Sometimes young people look as though they have understood something and then one might find a week later that they have not quite grasped it yet. It was impossible to do that, and it will be impossible to do a similar thing in terms of subject knowledge. It would be ridiculous. It points to the fact that the Conservatives are not talking to the professionals who actually deliver education. It is naive.

Vernon Coaker: What my hon. Friend has just said and the passion with which she said it outlines the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman will find himself in when he tries to list content in the way that he started to when I asked him what he meant by curriculum objectives rather than programmes of study. With respect to the previous Conservative Government, it bedevilled them when they tried to do it. They were castigated for not having all those things in it.
The Rose review lays out programmes of study and of course contains skills and cross-curricular provisions as well. It is not clear from amendments 48 and 51 what function the curriculum objectives would be intended to fulfil. Nor is it clear how they would provide access to the knowledge, skills and understanding, and curricular continuity across the key stagesa point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valleyto which all children are currently entitled through the national curriculum programmes of study.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will know that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) laid out 24 areas of history in the Evening Standard, which he said were an essential part of the history curriculum.

Nick Gibb: Over nine years.

Vernon Coaker: If the hon. Gentleman tries 24 areas over nine years, he will be castigated. It will be 30 over six and 58 over 10. That is where it will end up if the hon. Gentleman is not careful. He also started to get into trouble with the free school notion. He does not understand the illogicality of the point that he made to the hon. Member for Yeovil. He said that it is an essential curriculumso essential that everyone should do itand then he said, But we are going to set up loads of schools that do not have to. That is an illogical positionhis Whip wants me to finish; my own Whip does, too. I totally disagree with him, but he laid out what he thought with clarity and passion, and then said, It is so important for every school to do this that we are going to set up a system where schools can do what they want. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, the logic drives a coach and horses through it, let alone the chaos that would result in the system from the market free-for-all that he envisages in school places.
So I hope the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will withdraw his amendment. On assessment, we recently had an expert group look into the future of testing arrangements and we have made changes to key stage 2, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will know. Formal assessment arrangements exist at the end of key stage 2 with respect to maths and English. There are, of course, attainment targets laid out in the national curriculum document. They will remain the same. The Government have no intention of changing the assessment arrangements at present. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: This has been an interesting debate, but I do not know whether the Minister understands what he is introducing, or whether he believes his own rhetoric about reducing prescription and increasing flexibility. That could easily have been achieved in secondary legislation by simply getting rid of or slimming down the objectives in the programmes of study. If he examines the programmes of study and reads Kevin Donnellys book and/or E.D. Hirschs book, The Schools We Need: And Why We Dont Have Them, he will see that that conforms closely to an outcome-based approach to education.
The first two items in the English programme of study for essential knowledge are, (a),
how language is used to express, explore, and share information, ideas, thoughts and feelings
and (b),
the power of language and communication to engage people and influence their ideas and actions.
Those broad phrases can mean almost anything, and the real devil is in the detail, which is set out in the programmes of study, which again tend to lead to repetition in different years, and focus on a particular competence-based curriculum rather than a knowledge-based curriculum. It is ideological, and that is why I feel so strongly that it should not be in this legislation. It has become a feature of the QCAs approach to our education system during the past six or seven years, and it has done untold damage.
If clause 10 goes through and the programmes of study are inflicted prescriptively on our primary schools, I know what will happen. Someone will go into a primary school on the date mentioned by the hon. Member for Stourbridge and will see written on the board, Today we will do N15. Objective: authors. That approach to education will kill the joy of learning, and of reading, and it will be a retrograde step.
We have had a wide debate, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment 186, in clause 10, page 12, line 36, at end insert
(7) The Secretary of State shall ensure teachers have appropriate guidance and resources to teach the areas and stages of learning set out in subsection (3) to pupils with special educational needs or a disability in relation to
(a) programmes of study, and
(b) attainment targets and assessment arrangements..
The amendment obviously refers to the areas of learning proposed in the Bill, and is a belt-and-braces measure to ensure that we carry our responsibility to children with special educational needs or a disability through to any new curriculum that might be introduced. I seek assurance from the Minister that teachers will have the appropriate resources for and clarity about the stages of learning and applicability of the new curriculum and the attainment targets for children with special educational needs.
I have mentioned that we rushed through inclusion without first obtaining everything that needed to be in place, and before we rush into a new curriculum, we should ensure that it passes a number of tests on what needs to be in place for children with special educational needs.

Vernon Coaker: In line with my comments about the hon. Ladys amendments to an earlier clause, she has made an extremely important point, but it is not necessary for that to be in the Bill. However, I assure her that in all cases the QCDA will provide guidance for teachers on how the national curriculum will be taught, and an important part of that will be the needs of pupils with special educational needs and disability. With that assurance that we can achieve the purpose of her amendment in another way, I hope that the hon. Lady will see fit to withdraw it.

Annette Brooke: I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I just wanted to put down an important marker, as we move into what may be a new era, to make sure that the guidance covers all the aspects of my proposal. I thank the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

PSHE in maintained schools

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 11, page 13, leave out line 11.

Clive Betts: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 58, in clause 11, page 13, line 11, after education, insert
(but constituting no more than 5% of the curriculum time).
Amendment 106, in clause 11, page 13, line 15, after education, insert
(but constituting no more than 5% of the curriculum time).
Amendment 56, in clause 11, page 13, leave out lines 16 to 19.
Amendment 59, in clause 11, page 13, line 19, after education, insert
(but constituting no more than 5% of the curriculum time).
Amendment 77, in clause 11, page 13, line 20, leave out subsection (4).
New clause 6Capacity of schools to implement PSHE
(1) Before requiring maintained schools or Academies to implement PSHE the Secretary of State shall carry out an impact assessment into the capacities of such schools to provide PSHE and any such impact assessment shall be reported to Parliament..

Tim Loughton: We have spent a long time doing geography, English and history. We are now going to do sex, and personal, social health and economic education as part of it. The next few clauses are clearly a contentious part of the Bill. They concentrate on what is in PSHE. We have all been lobbied heavily, particularly on how far the sex and relationship education elements of the Bill should go.
At the outset, it is worth saying that my worry about the way in which this part of the Bill is structured does not derive from an objection to PSHE. A lot of stuff mentioned in the Bill should be taught to children. I am a big advocate of far better sex and relationship education, which historically we do badly in this country, and I am sure that many members of the Committee have all had some pretty inadequate experiences of its teaching in our schools. It is a bit of a postcode lottery.
There are three matters at the heart of why we are worried about the structure of this aspect of the Bill. First, I am concerned about pressures on the curriculum and the timetable in schools. Secondly, our overriding concern must be about the quality of what is taught to our children under the headings of PSHE, and sex and relationship education in particular. A third important matter that we must bear in mind is the rights, responsibilities and considerations of the parents.
Clearly, what is at stake is parents power to withdraw their children from particular aspects of what is now being proposed as compulsory in schools. That is a problem. A parents right to withdraw their child from certain forms of teaching is a principle that has lasted until now and that goes to the heart of parental choice, by which we still set great store.
This part of the Bill is a bit of a muddle, and I think that it will cause problems if it passes as currently structured. That is why we have taken as the basis for a proper debate the principle that PSHE should not become such a structured, compulsory part of the curriculum. Schools are successfully incorporating it in other ways into their curriculum and timetable.
Virtually every weekI am sure that the same goes for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and other hon. MembersI am approached by some outside organisation such as a charity, voluntary group or business saying what amounts to Such and such a subject really should be part of the national curriculum. This is such an essential subject that we must make sure its absolutely up there with all the other subjects that children must learn in schools.
As part of the lobbying and briefs that we have had for this aspect of the Bill, I received a perfectly reasonable brief from St. John Ambulance saying that basic first aid should be part of the national curriculum and that we must find time to ensure that all our kids have basic first aid skills, because it is an important subject. I am sure that we all agree that it is an important subject. If more people knew basic first aid, perhaps fewer people would suffer from accidents and so on.
We also had a brief from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds saying that there should be a statutory purpose for the environment and sustainable futures as part of the national curriculum. Again, it is an important subjectI am sure we all agree that we want our children to be more environmentally awarebut the RSPB thinks that it should be part of the national curriculum.
The list goes on and on, with various organisations with axes to grind. The trouble is that the time in which our children can learn in schools is limited. If we cram more and more into the compulsory part of the national curriculum, something must give. Either we must drop other subjects altogether, or the other subjects that remain compulsory will be diluted in some way. That is the balance to be struggled with, and that is why objections to the structure of this part of the Bill are based largely on what is practical in our schools and what children can actually cope with.
Amendment 55 is a way of plotting territory. It would remove PSHE as a compulsory subject. A selection of our amendments have been grouped together as an either/or option. If PSHE is to become a statutory part of the curriculum, amendments 58 and 106 would cap the amount of time overtly devoted to it in the curriculum.
That is part of the nonsense of including such a subject in the compulsory curriculum. It may be that PSHE is being taught successfully now through other subjects and a range of different media. My concern is that everything that comes under the heading of PSHE and all the things that I would describe loosely as healthy livingdomestic science, healthy eating, cooking and doing additional sportare largely academic if children do not have the core skills, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton articulated so well, of being able to read, write and understand what they are being taught. We must strike a balance in what we are teaching our children.
So we have sought to put some limits on the amount of time that will be taken up by PSHE if it is to remain as a core curriculum subject. I am probing the Minister to tell me how she thinks that such a matter will be articulated within the school timetable.

Ann Cryer: Just for clarification because I have never been very good at maths, how many minutes a day will this amendment mean? We are talking about 5 per cent., but has the hon. Gentleman worked out what will happen in the classroom if the amendment is accepted? Will the subject account for half an hour or an hour? I am just not sure what sort of proportion it will be of the weeks lessons and time.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady makes a good point. My hon. Friend tells me that the time roughly equates to that of half a GCSE. A GCSE takes up 10 per cent. of the curriculum time, so PSHE will take up roughly half that. The hon. Lady can then work out how much physical time in minutes and hours that will take. Putting it alongside other GCSE subjects puts the matter into a more useful perspective.
I have outlined the basis of amendments 58 and 106.
Amendment 56 takes a PSHE requirement out of the Education Act 2006. Amendment 59 inserts the 5 per cent. cap in subsection (3), and amendment 77 would take PSHE out of the core curriculum.
We all know that we have a very serious problem with sex and relationship education in this country, and we need to ensure that our children and young people have a far better grasp of responsible sexual relations and responsible relationships. Let me touch on some of the figures. One in 10 sexually active 16 to 24-year-olds have chlamydia, 75 per cent. of sexually active 16 to 24-year-olds do not use condoms. The number of under-age children having sex doubled between 1990 and 2000 and continues to increase. The cases of HIV have trebled since 1997.
Part of the problem is the quality of the teaching of sex education. The UK Youth Parliament has produced a very interesting study about the existence of a postcode lottery in the teaching of sex education. In an analogy that I have given in the pastthis was the case in my school although with different namesMrs. Miggins, the geography teacher, happens to have a couple of free periods on a Thursday afternoon so she gets to do sex education this term. We need far better standards in the quality of sex education, which need not be taught by teachers who are in school. There is a case for saying that a better quality of sex education can come from outside bodies. By that I mean specially trained teachers from voluntary organisations who have their specialisms and a better empathetic relationship with the children, who are not in front of the same teacher in a class on some completely unrelated subject for other parts of the week.
So we must concentrate on the quality of how we teach some of those subjects, and that is not solved by just saying, It must occupy a certain part of the curriculum in the classroom now. There are far more imaginative ways in which we can do it.
The third consideration is the role of parents. One of the witnesses, Gill Frances, made the point that the number of children being withdrawn from sex and relationship education is so small that the age consideration is something of a red herring. The withdrawal rate is 0.04 per cent., according to Ofsted, which equates to around 3,000 children in England. We shall come to the issue in a later clause, but I cannot understand why the right to withdraw children from the subject is to disappear in respect of a certain age level under the changes recommended by the Government.
I welcome the new guidance that the Government recently distributed about changes proposed for clause 13, which emphasises the important nature of marriage and family life. Genuine improvements are being added. Some have queried whether the Government are changing their policy, in respect of giving parents the ultimate right over whether to withdraw their children from certain subjects if that conflicts with their ethos, religious instructions and so forth.
The Governments own public consultation on the subject showed that the majority of parents, carers and guardians wanted to retain their current right to withdraw children from the sex and relationship element of PSHE. The Government need to make a better case for why they want to bring about substantial changes to the curriculum in schools. They need to make a better case to assure people of what is going to give if we place greater emphasis on PSHE, and why the quality of the teaching of those subjects would be improved greatly if it were made a compulsory curriculum subject.
That is the reasoning behind the amendments. We shall come to a little more detail about some of the aspects of sex and relationship education during discussion of the age opt-out considerations in the later clauses in the group, but that is broadly why we think the clause, as structured, would prove a muddle, with unintended consequences. It would not necessarily improve the quality of teaching of some of the important aspects under the heading of PSHE and it would alter the relationship between the school and the community of parents. The best way of teaching such subjects has been through an understanding between the schools and the parents about what is best for the children. Making the subject compulsory changes the dynamics of that relationship. The Government need to make a stronger case for why they want to do so.
In many ways, the amendments are probing, but they set out the premise on which we want to address some of our later amendments in more detail, as part of the changes to PSHE and to sex and relationship education in particular.

Annette Brooke: I have often proposed that PSHE should be compulsory, because it is so important that it is carried out well. Every child should have the opportunity to learn about the whole range of issues. Every child should have the entitlement to learn about life skills, as we have often heard from other Members of Parliament. I do not think that we can go on any longer with how the subject is being delivered across the whole run of schools. Of course there are excellent examples within individual schools, but I do not think that anybody would attempt to argue that overall we are dealing well with PSHE in this country.
New clause 6 touches, in part, on some of the points that have been made. The compulsory element must be matched with quality provision; that is so important. One element of that would be an assessment of the capacities of schools to provide quality PSHE. Equally, what proportionit need not be a rigid proportionof the curriculum PSHE might take up must be established. Obviously, a lot of PSHE can be delivered in a cross-curricular manner, and it would be very well delivered in that way. However, there is a lack of clarity at the moment.
In retrospect, I applaud the Government for how long they took to consult with everybody. I was so anxious that we should get on with things that I think I criticised them for the length of the consultation. However, having reached the point that we are at today, we can look back and say that a thorough job has been done.
So it may be that our new clause is redundant; it may be that the Government have actually done the work already. Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats very strongly support in principle what the Government are doing in this area.

Caroline Flint: I concur with the hon. Lady; I firmly support the idea that PSHE should now be a compulsory element of the curriculum. My understanding is that the Youth Parliament, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to, has also supported it for some years. In fact, I remember that when I was Minister of State for Public Health, we were lobbied to that effect and I supported the idea then. I am very glad that Ministers in the newly formed Department for Children, Schools and Families have come round to that point of view today.
However, the issue is also about the quality of education that is provided. I am afraid to say that many young people that I have spoken to over the years have complained bitterly about the quality of how aspects of PSHE were taught within schools. First, there was the embarrassment of teachers who were not trained to teach it. Secondly, we need to think about how we need to deal with these issues, particularly sex and relationships education, given that a teacher may have a very mature 11-year-oldI use my words wisely hereand a very young 11-year-old in the same class. There are many issues about how to deal with this subject in a mixed-sex school, given that some sessions are more appropriate for girls-only classes and some sessions are more appropriate for boys-only classes.
For a long time, whenever we have debated sex educationit is why the relationships aspect is so importantwe have adopted a rather schoolboy-ish and giggling attitude towards it; I do not want to be gender-specific, but that is the case. That means that we do not really get into the depth of relationships, as we need to.
The issue is about informing young people about how to use contraceptives, whether condoms or other forms. However, it is also about the ability to give young women and young men an understanding of the dangers of what happens if they do not use contraceptives, and about teaching them to say no or to demand that such protection is used if they are going to have sex. It is about being assertive and having control over their relationships, and that has been missing from our debates on the issue. Whenever we debate it, all the shutters go down and we do not have an adequate conversation that really equips young people to make the right decisions at the right time when they are on their own and faced with peer group pressure. Undoubtedly, peer group pressure is hugely significant.
As for parents, I was pleased to hear Gill Frances, the lady from the Teenage Pregnancy Advisory Group, say in her evidence to us the other week that, overwhelmingly, parents do keep children in these classes. She also agreed that 15 was the right age for these young people to have the appropriate support in terms of sex and relationship education.
I also remind the Committee that parents often say, in every survey, that they do not feel equipped to have such conversations with their own children and that they want otherswhether the school or others acting on behalf of itto provide the opportunity for their children to have those conversations in an atmosphere of privacy, trust and confidence. That is an important element of the proposed legislation and it is long overdue, but the proof will be in how it is delivered. How well it has been done will be apparent when young people in five or 10 years time speak about the quality of that experience.

Diana Johnson: At this late stage in the day I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Betts. I am pleased finally to be on my feet. I apologise for sniffling and coughing throughout todays proceedings.
I welcome the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, who as usual took a common-sense approach to the issue, and those of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, who welcomed the fact that PSHE will now be made statutory. I hope that I will be able to deal with the three areas that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is concerned about: pressure on the curriculum, the quality of PSHE and the rights and responsibilities of parents.
This group of amendments covers a number of aspects of PSHE provision and serves to raise concerns about the nature, content and merits of statutory PSHE being introduced in schools, the overall impact it will have on schools and delivery of the existing curriculum.
New clause 6 would introduce a new clause into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to assess the capacity of maintained schools or academies to deliver PSHE by way of an impact assessment, and to have a report produced for Parliament.
I shall deal with amendments 55 and 56 together. Amendment 55 would prevent PSHE from becoming part of the statutory secondary national curriculum at key stage 3. Amendment 56 would create a strange position, in that PSHE would become part of the statutory secondary national curriculum at key stage 4 by being inserted into the existing section 85 of the Education Act 2002, but would then cease to be part of the national curriculum once the new provisions introduced by the Education and Inspections Act 2006 are commenced. Presumably, the intention of the hon. Gentleman who tabled the amendments was that PSHE should not be part of key stage 4 at all.
We all know that PSHE prepares children and young people to deal with real-life issues, giving them the knowledge, skills and understanding they require to lead confident, healthy and independent lives. Research has shown that young people want opportunities to discuss issues that are relevant to their lives, including emotions, relationships and health issues such as mental health, sexual health, diet and exercise, not to mention topics such as careers. Of course, many families discuss such issues, but children and young people tell us how important it is to have a perspective in school, where they can discuss these issues among themselves. Sad to say, those things are not always discussed anywhere near adequately at home. Children tell us that clearly.
We have also consulted schools, teachers, parents and faith groups. There was strong support for making PSHE part of the national curriculum at all key stages, including primary. PSHE contributes to the Every Child Matters agenda and to fulfilling the five outcomes framework by helping children to understand what it means to be healthy, to stay safe, to enjoy and achieve, to make a positive contribution and to achieve economic well-being.
We know from Ofsted reports looking at PSHE that although in some schools it is taught well, provision varies throughout the country. That is why it is important to make PSHE statutory. The key point in that regard is to ensure that PSHE at key stages 3 and 4 builds on pupils own experiences and on the work carried out at key stages 1 and 2, and complements other areas of the curriculum. We need to be clear that if PSHE is to be effective, it must be delivered in a variety of ways to the different age groups.
Let me give Committee members an example of the topics that children and young people will be deprived of if the amendment is accepted. At key stages 3 and 4 they will not be able to explore and learn about topics such as drugs and alcohol, bullying, body image and the changing nature of the relationship between the sexes. It is in the crucial later years that young people should have the opportunity to look in depth at topics such as sex, sexuality and relationships; they should benefit from the wider range of experience and knowledge with which they will engage.

Tim Loughton: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady about the importance of those subjects. However, she needs to say why they would be much better taught, but not to the detriment of the other things that children are at school to learn, if they were a statutory curriculum subject. It is the quality that concerns me, and the hon. Lady should address that aspect.

Diana Johnson: I agree that quality is most important in making PSHE work for our young people. I shall speak in a moment about the amendment, which would restrict the amount of PSHE taught in schools. The wider expectation is that PSHE will help with combating social exclusion and disaffection and equipping young people with the skills and attitudes needed to react positively to the pressures of modern life.
I now turn to amendments 58, 59 and 106. They would restrict PSHE to no more than 5 per cent. of curriculum time at key stages 3 and 4, presumably so that it does not impact on other parts of the curriculum or on school activities. That is entirely unwarranted. The national curriculum has always left it to schools to decide the proportion of the school timetable that is to be given to subjects. I see no good reason to change that.
The amendments would also contradict the provisions of section 87(4) of the Education Act 2002, which prohibits programmes of study from requiring the allocation of particular periods of time to the study of a particular subject. The comments of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton about a 10 per cent. figure for GCSEs are not correct. Timetabling has always been the preserve of the school, and it would be strange to impose such a requirement in respect of only one subject.
Allocating curriculum time for PSHE would be detrimental to a schools flexibility to organise the content and delivery of the curriculum to meet the needs of its pupils, and to introduce approaches to teaching and learning within and across curriculum subjects and on a cross-curricular basis. We already know that when PSHE is taught well, it does not have to be a discrete subject taught once a week. It can be taught with a variety of other curriculum subjects.
Amendment 77 would remove the definition and overarching principles that have been designed to safeguard the delivery of PSHE. It is particularly important for statutory PSHE that we provide clear and consistent messages, and they should be underpinned by a clear definition of PSHE. Schools, parents, children and young people and the wider public need to be kept aware of the range of issues covered by PSHE, as well as being given more opportunity to consider the rationale, key concepts and topics that underpin the subject.
It is important to embrace a number of key principles that we believe should underpin the teaching of elements of statutory PSHE. They are equally important. Responses to our consultation on PSHE revealed concern that protection was needed against inappropriate and unbalanced teaching, particularly of some of the more emotive elements. Although it is important to recognise that pupils in schools come from various religious and cultural backgrounds, we should not ignore the wider religious and cultural make-up of the nation. It is this balance that the principles strike.
Requiring PSHE to be taught in a way that promotes equality will encourage the acceptance of diversity and emphasise the importance of rights and responsibilities, along with other principles. We wish to strike an appropriate balance. Removing those principles would remove some of the safeguards and assurances that parents and pupils seek for the teaching of this subject. As I have said, many elements of PSHE raise contradictory views. The principles will enshrine in legislation the need for teachers to be sensitive to those views, providing children with information but always in the context of a balanced view. Amendment 77 would remove that protection; it would damage rather than improve effective PSHE provision in our schools.
New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to assess the capacity of maintained schools and academies to deliver PSHE; it would be done by way of an impact assessment and a report would be produced for Parliament. The Committee may be aware that an impact assessment for the delivery of statutory PSHE was published by my Department last November. Copies were laid alongside the draft Bill for hon. Members in both Houses. A further impact assessment would be both unnecessary and a costly burden.
Let me take the opportunity to address the issue of the capacity and ability of schools to deliver statutory PSHE, and the perception that the subject will be an additional pressure on the existing school curriculum. I am aware that little primary research has been conducted on the delivery and impact of statutory PSHE education as a whole. Most research that has been undertaken has been small-scale and focused on specific strands within the context of PSHE, such as education about sex and relationships, or drugs and alcohol.
Much of the commentary available on the quality of PSHE in schools is based on inspection evidence gathered by Ofsted, and suggests that the quality of PSHE programmes is generally improving. From what we have seen and heard, my Department would generally endorse that position. However, as I mentioned earlier, Ofsteds latest report concludes that
this broadly encouraging picture conceals some variation.
Inconsistency in coverage and variability in quality is of concern. By making this subject statutory, we can achieve a step change in the quality of that provision.
The number of pupils currently withdrawing from sex education probably reflects the fact that there is no core content. Schools provide sex and relationship education in many different ways, and what they teach depends on which part of the country they are in, and what kind of focus and attention the leadership of the school gives to that issue within PSHE. With PSHE becoming statutory, and given the list of what is expected to be taught in sex and relationship education, it is not clear whether the numbers will change. That is why it is important to put the right of withdrawal in the Bill. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham knows, we will discuss that matter under a different group of amendments.

Tim Loughton: I did not disagree with a lot of what the Minister said. Towards the end of her comments she said that by making PSHE statutory, we can achieve a step change. I want to achieve a step change, because a lot of the things that are definedsomewhat rigidlyin the Bill are things that we need to do a heck of a lot better, such as teaching kids about the downside of binge drinking, achieving better mental health, being more aware of mental health and emotional problems at an earlier age, and ensuring that they are more conscious of how they can live, eat and exercise more healthily. We all agree that we need to achieve a lot more than we currently doone need only look at the figures for the obesity epidemic, or at the one in 10 school-age children with a mental health problem and so on. We all agree on what we want to achieve, but simply saying that by making something statutory we can achieve a step change does not actually achieve it. Our concern is that making PSHE a statutory subject in the curriculum per se will not achieve that changeit all depends on how we go about it.

Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that alongside making things statutory we need other additions to the Bill? If that is the case, will he explain what we need to get a more quality product at the end?

Tim Loughton: Right at the beginning, I made it absolutely clear that this was about the way in which, and the imagination with which, PSHE is taught, and about how it engages children to ensure that they learn more and that they want to learn. We do not necessarily achieve that just by making it a statutory subject. In these probing amendments, I am trying to get at why the Minister thinks that the act of making something a statutory subject will automatically lead to a step change, in her words, that will improve quality in all subjects, which is what we all want.
We have taken a slightly more analytical role. We are not saying that PSHE should not be taught. Of course it should be taught, but there are many ways of doing that. We heard a very good example during the witness stage when John McIntosh, I believe, alluded to the British Museum series that is currently on Radio 4, which was mentioned earlier. It is a brilliant series about the history of the world in 100 objects. Having listened to some of the programmes, I invested in an iPod so that I could download them all and listen to the whole lot.
A 15-minute programme about a paleolithic hand axe from the 14th millennium BC can teach a whole range of subjects: eating; how our ancestors used tools; and how those tools influenced their living habits, grazing habits, and lifestyle. The programme discussed geography and changes in the climate that affected the lifestyle of those people. It dealt with a whole load of subjects, all within the analysis of one lump of old flint[Laughter.]

Graham Stuart: You can learn such a lot from it.

Tim Loughton: That is entirely the point, because it is not the object in itself that teaches people, but what you do with it.

Diana Johnson: While this is interestingthe hon. Gentleman was about to say what you do with itit is important to recognise that by making PSHE statutory we are not saying, Thats it, everything will be fine from now on. Having a statutory programme of what we expect to be taught in PSHE will give schools the focus to ensure that they deliver the skills and knowledge that we want our young people to have.
Perhaps I did not mention bringing in experts. I went to see a class in a Catholic primary school in south London where PSHE is taught effectively. The school brought in a local GP and an expert who worked with young children to address how bodies change as a baby becomes an old man. The children had a basket of underwear, and they picked up various items of underwear and talked through who they thought would wear them.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in that we need to be imaginative and we need to use experts, but I do not think that his idea about prescribing less than 5 per cent. is what this is about. We need to recognise that we need to do this much better than we have in the past, and that we need to use a variety of methods to do that.

Tim Loughton: What I want to prescribe is that schools have maximum flexibility to teach PSHE as imaginatively and effectively as they wish. To return to my analogy, it is not the lump of stone that matters, but the explanation to the children, and the way in which their imagination is fired so that they want to listen and learn more as a result.
The Minister gave an excellent example, and I am sure that all of us have come across others. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I are patrons of Life Education Centres, which is a charity that takes its mobile classrooms to schools to teach kids in an imaginative way about problems with smoking and drugs, and about healthy eating. It uses a high-technology classroom and some really inspiring teachers, and gets a very different result and reaction from the children than might have been achieved with the same old teacher in the same old classroom teaching PSHE as one of the statutory subjects.
We are not saying that PSHE should not be taught. Of course it should be taught, but it needs to be taught much better. We are saying not that it should not be part of the curriculum, but that schools should have much greater freedom to be able to inspire their kids in the way in which they think is best to get the results that we all want.
This comes down to quality. Simply putting a subject on the curriculum in this raw way will not on its own lead to the results that the Minister seems to think will automatically be achieved.

Caroline Flint: I do not think anybody believes that just putting something on the curriculum produces results in and of itself, which is why we need other mechanisms to ensure that delivery actually happens. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that making this statutory is harmful to the prospects of delivering PSHE, particularly sex and relationships education? If that is the case, what is his alternative? I asked him that question before and he did not answer it.

Tim Loughton: I started off by saying that something has to give, because there is a finite amount of time in a school day to teach the things that we want our children to learn. Simply introducing a more regimented requirement in relation to how we teach PSHE and all the things in this list that go with it must have an impact on what the school is teaching in the rest of school time to everybody else. This is the Governments own policy. Again, I note that, according to Ministers,
Recent curriculum developments have been aimed at reducing the statutory core and allowing schools even more autonomy to organise their curriculum.[Official Report, 3 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 185W.]
That was stated by a DCSF Minister. Making PSHE a statutory subject in that respect would appear to be a step in the opposite direction. That is the point we are making.
We have had something of a debate, but we must go a lot further to reassure people about what we are going to achieve. Will the Minister say how the simple act of giving PSHE a higher profile and greater weight within the school day, and prescribing it for schools to follow, will improve the quality of the teaching? At the end of the day, the quality of the teaching will make the difference, and that is what we are trying to get at.
It is all too easy just to bung the subject on the curriculum and tick the box, but that will not achieve the outcomes that I think we all want to achieve for our children. Having said that, I do not want to take up the Committees time any further, so given the Ministers reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 11, page 13, line 12, leave out modern.
I shall deal with amendment 76 quickly because a dinner break beckons. We tabled this probing amendment because one of the subjects that the Bill provides that schools will have to follow is a modern foreign language, and we are purely querying why that is set out in clause 11(1). By proposing to take out the word modern, I am asking whether the Minister thinks a classical languagebe it Latin or Greekwould hold the same weight as the modern foreign language that she wants to be taught to our children. Hence, this is a probing amendment to establish her views on Latin or other similar subjects that are not classified as modern.

Diana Johnson: Perhaps I ought to start by paying tribute to the hon. Gentlemans creativity in moving the amendment in the middle of our debate on PSHE.
The amendment would change what constitutes a language for the purposes of the curriculum at key stage 3. The study of modern foreign languages has been statutory at key stage 3 since the inception of the national curriculum. Until the implementation of the new secondary curriculum in 2008, schools had to teach a working language of the European Union before offering any other language, so a school could not just teach Chinese, for example.
In the revised secondary curriculum, schools no longer have to teach a working language of the European Union before offering any other language. Instead, their teaching of a modern foreign language may include major European or world languages, such as Arabic, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Mandarin and so on. The list is not closed, so schools may make their choice on the basis of supply and demand in their area. Importantly, the programme of study for modern foreign languages contains requirements for inter-cultural understanding, which are met by communicating in the target language with speakers of that language, including native speakers where possible, and studying similarities and contrasts between the cultures of different countries, including our own. These requirements could not properly be covered if the language taughtLatin, for examplewas not spoken by a contemporary culture.

Tim Loughton: Is the Minister aware that in a remote part of Albania there is a group of people who still speak a form of Latin?

Diana Johnson: I am delighted to hear that. I did not know, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. The key point is that the languages taught in mainstream schools are ones that allow children and young people to interact with different cultures, talk to people and spend time in the relevant countries. However, there is nothing to stop schools from teaching Latin or Greek, if they wish. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton: I am glad I have taught the Minister something about the fascinating group of people called the Vlachs. I do not want to pursue the matter further, however, so I am happy to accept what she said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clive Betts: As the Committee intends to sit late this evening, it is now appropriate to have a break for something to eat, so I shall suspend the Committee for one hour.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming

David Laws: On a point of order, Mr. Betts. I cannot be the only Member to have noticed that we are on clause 11 of a Bill that has 50 clauses, including many controversial clauses that people outside this place will expect us to scrutinise properly. Have you had any suggestions from the Government or the usual channels that there should be some attempt to modify the programme order, so that the Committee can discharge its responsibilities?

Clive Betts: I have not had any representations, but my understanding is that if the Committee was to have gone through the procedure of modifying the motion passed in the House, it would have to have done so before now. As things stand, we are bound by the decision of the House that we have to finish at 5 pm on Thursday.

David Laws: Further to that point of order, Mr. Betts. Would it be possible for the Government to bring forward a motion on the Floor of the House tomorrow to extend the period beyond 5 pm on Thursday?

Clive Betts: I understand that if the Government were to give notice of that today, that could be done, but that is a matter for the Government, not for me.

Vernon Coaker: On a point of order, Mr. Betts. This is on another matter. I have put on the Table some examples of the report card, which members of the Committee may wish to look at. That refers to clause 20. It never occurred to me before that it would be useful to do that, so I apologise for not doing so before. It does not make any real difference, but people may find the examples interesting.

Clive Betts: I thank the Minister for that point of information, rather than point of order.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 11, page 13, line 23, leave out shall and insert may.

Clive Betts: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 57, in clause 11, page 13, leave out line 31.
Amendment 79, in clause 11, page 13, line 36, leave out from that to end of line 6 on page 14 and insert PSHE is taught appropriately,.
Amendment 249, in clause 11, page 13, line 39, leave out and balanced.
Amendment 250, in clause 11, page 13, line 40, leave out from beginning of the line to end of line 2 on page 14.
Amendment 251, in clause 11, page 14, line 3, leave out should and insert must.
Amendment 60, in clause 11, page 14, line 10, leave out from State to end of line 11.

Tim Loughton: Duly refreshed by supper, we are now dealing with further parts of PSHE. These are probing amendments. We are trying a slightly different tack here. We have bunged everything into them to test the Governments determination and where they are going on this. On the basis that the Government are clearly determined to keep PSHE as a statutory subject in the Bill, the aim of the amendments is to give schools, governors and heads of schools more discretion in how they teach it; we are trying to be as unprescriptive as possible.
Amendment 78 would therefore change shall to maya favourite amendment of Public Bill Committees. Basically, subsection (4) of clause 11 would state that PSHE may comprise the seven categories that are listed. It would be up to schools what emphasis they placed on certain criteria in the list, what other aspects they thought should be included in PSHE, and how best to teach the subject as an integrated part of any new or existing subjects. The amendment is quite straightforward and gives schools greater discretion to decide how they can most effectively teach PSHE to their pupils, given that they will have to teach it.
The second amendmentamendment 57seeks clear clarification from the Minister on why she thinks that proposed new subsection (2) is necessary. This is one of those Henry VIII clauses that give enormous powers to the Secretary of State. Whatever we decide in Committee, whatever the eventual Act looks like, whichever parts of these components end up in the legislation, the Secretary of State can change it all. The Secretary of State, of whatever political persuasion, can all of a sudden decide on a whim that education about alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, and education about emotional health and well-being should not be a requirement. Those provisions would then drop off, be replaced with other things or be amended in another way.
Clearly, a lot of thought has gone into what the Government say that PSHE should consist of, and the headings are quite broad, so the Government need to justify the position whereby, on a whim, all of them could be wiped out through secondary legislation. We would appreciate some examples of how a future Secretary of State might seek to make such changes without further proper reference to this House.
The latter part of subsection (4) is an absolute minefield. I am referring to the terminology used in some of the provisions. For example, proposed new section 85B(5) of the Education Act 2002, relating to the three principles of teaching PSHE to which governors and heads need to pay close regard, states:
The first principle is that information presented in the course of providing PSHE should be accurate and balanced.
What on earth does that mean? Who will judge whether information is balanced, let alone accurate? These are not scientific subjects that are being taught. Certainly, emotional health and sex and relationships are highly complex subjects, and people have different views on how, to what age groups and to what groups of children they should be taught. How on earth can a governing body make a case that the way in which its school is teaching such a subject is balanced, let alone accurate? Again, some guidance from the Minister would be helpful.
Similarly, we have already heard from other members of the Committee about age appropriateness. Clearly, different children grow up at different speeds. Different children from different ethnic backgrounds will have a different level of education on sex and relationship matters, and on attitudes to drink and drugs. I am sure that the hon. Member for Keighley will have some comments
Mrs. Cryerrose

Tim Loughton: I thought that the hon. Lady would have some comments on that subject, and I am happy to give way.

Ann Cryer: I was just going to say that there are very different attitudes towards homosexuality, as to whether it should, say, be punished or treated.

Tim Loughton: Absolutely, so how on earth can we devise a system of PSHE that can be gauged to be age appropriate, let alone balanced, for a school in the hon. Ladys constituency, of which we have heard a lot, where there may be a predominantly Muslim population who have come from backgrounds and homes with parents who have very strong views on drink, sexuality and other such matters? Such a school may be very different from a school at the other end of the country in my constituency or the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, or from a school in a neighbouring constituency with a very different constituency of pupils. It will therefore be an enormous task to try to make meaningful regulations out of these provisions.
Let us go to the further provisions. Under proposed new section 85B(6)(b), PSHE has to reflect
a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other perspectives.
The reasonableness test is always a big hurdle in these Committees. How on earth will a Minister define a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other perspectives? Should that just be the mainstream religions? Should it reflect the religions that are represented in a particular school, even if they are not the mainstream religions that form the majority of religions in the country? Again, it is a minefield.
Proposed new section 85B(7) states:
The third principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way that
(a) endeavours to promote equality.
Again, what on earth does that mean? If there is a phalanx of pupils who clearly do not appreciate the merits of equality, but the school has done its darnedest to teach them those merits, is that good enough, even though the school has clearly failed and something is wrong with the system?
The second consideration in that principle is to encourage acceptance of diversity. People in this Committee would come up with many different definitions of diversity and different ideas about how we could accept it. It is a sensitive area that is fraught with all sorts of problems. Our constituencies are made up of all sorts of different communities that have different perspectives. One would hope that the majority of parents take a close interest in what their children are being taught at school. That is particularly true of children from close family backgrounds and certain religious communities where they have a strict upbringing.
The clause will impose a lot of arbitrary and highly subjective judgments on whether a school is promoting PSHE in the best way. We are removing the rights of parents to withdraw their children from exposure to this sort of PSHE to a certain degree, because it is becoming a statutory curriculum subject. We will also greatly diminish parents right to withdraw their children from sex and relationship education, which we will come to.
When discussing an earlier group of amendments, I stated the principle that the choices of parents must feature more heavily than they appear to feature in the Bill. I have always followed the philosophy, including over the many years that I have been shadow Minister for Children, that in the vast majority of cases, the people who know what is best for children and what is in the interests of their welfare are their parents. We are taking away some of the powers of parents to make decisions about what is best for their children in an educational context. In so doing, we must be assured that what we are putting in place of that, and what we are subjecting children to with a degree of compulsion, is absolutely in their best interests. That point goes back to the paramountcy of the welfare of the child set out in the Children Act 1989.
What we are doing must be clearly defined, so that the benefits are clear to all. The clause is pretty mushy. It is full of subjective judgments that have to be made and contains pretty subjective and undefined language. That is why I would like to hear how the Minister intends the law to work in practice. On paper, it may sound fair game, but in practice it is a minefield.
The final amendment in the group, amendment 60, again refers to the powers of the Secretary of State. I do not think that I have seen a clause before quite like this one. It empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance, which is perfectly reasonable. The governors or the head teacher will have to have regard to that guidance. We could have a whole debate about what have regard to means, and about how compulsory that is. However, they not only have to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State, whom we can hold to account in this House, whoever he or she may be. The guidance could also be issued by
a person nominated by the Secretary of State.
We might not be able to hold that person to account. They might not appear before parliamentary Committees, such as the Children, Schools and Families Committee. They might not be beholden to the people in this House, who make laws such as those that we are debating. It would be useful if the Minister gave us some examples of the sort of people she thinks will act in loco of the Secretary of State, as they will be responsible for changing all sorts of guidance, potentially relating to some sensitive subjects, for some vulnerable young people and for many parents who will be concerned.
Parents have written to us with their concerns about how their children might be exposed to some of those changes. One parent who wrote to me stated:
Where a school gains consent and cooperation from parents, it preserves the community values, rather than imposing materials and topics with ideological issues attached.
That parents viewI have some sympathy with itis that if we can gain consensus, we can encourage parents to feel part of what their children are being taught in sensitive areas, without removing their power to withdraw their children from certain aspects that they do not like. If we consult fully with them, we are likely to get a much more effective way of teaching the disciplines of PSHE to a much more responsive audience, and so a much better-informed set of pupils will have been exposed to it.
Those are our probing amendments. There are many details missing to which the Minister must now turn her attention. I worry greatly that the highly subjective and rather mushy language used in the clause will not survive being put into practice.

Ken Purchase: I will deal with amendments 249 to 251, which relate to proposed new section 85B(5), (6) and (7), as set out in clause 11(4). My first point is on the question of balance. I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on that matter. It leaves so many openings for propagandising almost anything someone might want to say.
Proposed new subsection (1)(a) to (g), which sets out what will be taught, includes economic education. Some of us could do a splendid job of saying how wonderful Keynes was, and no doubt others could put the opposite point of view. That would be no more balanced than anything else that could be thrown into an economics lecture. Economists, of course, are known for saying, On the one hand this, and on the one hand that, but I suspect that someone teaching that part of the curriculum would be unlikely to have a detailed knowledge of economics. That could get a little more serious in some schools, particularly faith schools and academies that are run by people with fundamentalist beliefs. They might want to teach intelligent design and tell us that the world has existed only for 6,000 years and that all that business about evolution is so much nonsense. That word balanced gives the opportunity to bring in any crazy notion that a teacher or school might feel inclined to give vent to, and that is extremely concerning.
The paragraph would be made entirely acceptable by removing and balanced and relying on the word accurate. I believe that all of those subjects can be taught with accuracy, particularly those relating to physiology and biology. Those are matters of fact and not about balance. They are the things that make us human and give us a common grounding. It seems to me that talking of balance in those circumstances is nonsense.
Education about personal finance is also listed, but again, what has balance got to do with that? It is perfectly feasible to teach finance, physical activity and sex and relationships education on the basis of evidence, accuracy and facts. I will dwell no longer on that point. I think that the clause would be improved enormously by the removal of the words and balanced.

Tim Loughton: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman is saying. On financial education, does he agree with the fact that it would be better for children to invest in shares than to put their money in a building societya fact based on actuarial evidence? Would he be happy with that sort of fact?

Ken Purchase: I would be entirely happy for a teacher to explain the savings principle and the number of vehicles that a person can use to save, explaining risks along the way in each of those different saving opportunities. Provided that we are not on a mission, it is perfectly easy to teach such matters in a factual and accurate way by giving information that is already in textbooks and in the public domain.
As for proposed new subsection (6), the second principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way that
is appropriate to the ages of the pupils.
That should almost go without being written down. It beggars belief that someone could not recognise a class of five-year-olds from a class of 17-year-olds. That provision is a bit unnecessary, but the rest of the subsection is a travesty. As for religious and cultural backgrounds, when it comes to economics, individual safety, physiology and biology, that is a sop to those who have come to the Government and said that they do not like it. It is the language of obfuscation. It is along the lines of, Lets not really talk about these things at all. Its not very nice, you know.
The Government have actually listened to the voices that have dominated not only sexual education, but education for two centuries. It is now time to recognise that there are some straightforward ways in which to do things that will enlighten young people and allow them to live their lives hopefully to the full extent, so on and so forth. The provision
a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other perspectives
is not at all necessary. What does it mean? Does it include scientology? Can we call in Doris Day and Tom Cruise to give us a lecture? It is absolute nonsense. I fail to recognise that when teaching basic biology there is much of a cultural bias to be taken into account. For even a semi-enlightened group of people, the provision will have to go. It is an insult to modernity. It must go out of the way.
The clause goes on to say that
the third principle is that PSHE should be taught in a way that...endeavours to promote equality.
I agree, but should is simply not enough. There will be schools, especially those owned by individuals who allegedly intended to put up a couple of million quid, but the money never left their backside pockets. They will have religious fundamentalism on the brain. We even have the Pope now telling us that he does not like our equality. What on earth does it have to do with the Pope? Why is he not dealing with the spiritual for his flock and leaving the rest of us to get on with our lives in an equal and proper way? That is the sort of thing that we could expect unless we state that the subject must be done. I checked, as I thought that should would mean to most people that they ought to get on and do it. According to the lawyers, it does not mean that. If we have to have PSHE taught in that way, it must be taught. With those few words, I endorse amendments 249 and 251.

Diana Johnson: This group of amendments is dealing with the content of statutory PSHE and the principles underpinning it. In particular, amendment 57 would prevent the Secretary of State from being able to amend the content of statutory PSHE in proposed new section 85B by order. Amendment 60 would prevent the Secretary of State from asking other organisations to issue guidance on his behalf.
Amendment 78 seeks to make the contents of the programme of PSHE optional. One clear consequence would be that that would leave the content of PSHE undetermined and would in fact permit the Secretary of State more discretion, not less, in determining its actual content. It might also be intended to give schools the right to determine for themselves what should constitute PSHE, if taken with some of the other amendments tabled by the same hon. Members. By extension, amendment 79 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from imposing any principles that underpin and safeguard the teaching of all aspects of PSHE.
Amendment 57 would prevent the Secretary of State from using secondary legislation to amend any definition of PSHE, so that any further change would necessitate primary legislation. It is unfortunate that PSHE as a subject has often been defined in the media solely in terms of the more sensitive issues it explores, such as sex and relationships, drug use and misuse, and now debt. That may create the impression that PSHE education is simply a patchwork quilt of disconnected topics, with teaching focused solely on content and the transmission of information. More broadly, it helps young people to understand themselves, their relationships, the situations, opportunities, choices and experiences that they are likely to encounter now and in the future so that they can be safe, healthy and economically secure. However, its content may well change over time, as the topics that are relevant to young people change. For example, the economic element is new. A definition of PSHE five years ago would not have mentioned that, whereas now it is accepted by all sides that we were right to introduce it. Things will change and the amendment would make it harder, rather than easier, to reflect that reality.
To respond directly to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, the power to amend the content of PSHE is an order-making power, which is subject to an affirmative resolution procedure through Parliament. Therefore, it could not be changed on a whim, and those clauses are inserted into part 6 of the Education Act 2002. I hope that that will provide some reassurance.
Amendment 78 would make the contents of PSHE more fluid and allow schools or, in another interpretation, the Secretary of State greater discretion to amend the constituent parts. We all appreciate that PSHE is a complex area of learning. Unlike some of the more traditional curriculum subjects, its components are many and varied. It is a fluid subject that needs to reflect and meet the expectations of children and young people as they face the challenges of adult life. Effective PSHE education equips children and young people with the core knowledge, understanding, attitudes and practical skills to live healthy, safe, productive and fulfilled lives. It is those that are reflected in the Bills provisions, which the amendment would change. Therefore, we have concluded that it is essential for all children and young people to have an entitlement to a common core of knowledge, skills and understanding in PSHE education. The depth and range of the learning experience should no longer be determined solely by individual schools and teachers. I should, of course, make it clear that having a definition of PSHE is quite different from telling schools and teachers how the different components should be taught. While we say that, for example, personal finance must be covered and set out key elements of that in the more detailed programme of study, it remains absolutely a matter for schools to determine detailed content and teaching methods, so long as those are consistent with the principles of balance set out in the Bill.
Before I address the group of amendments that deal specifically with the principles governing the delivery of PSHE in the classroom, I would like the opportunity to speak to amendment 60, which seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from asking another organisation, or individuals, to issue guidance on PSHE on his behalf, to which a local authority governing body or head teacher must have regard. I accept that for the most part, stakeholders will look to the Secretary of State as the source of guidance. Indeed, such guidance already exists: for example, we published updated guidance on sex and relationship education last week.
However, suppose for a moment that the Secretary of State might occasionally take the view that guidance would best come from somewhere elsea panel of experts on personal finance, for example, or an expert with views on drugs. The amendment would not permit that and it would prevent organisations such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency from issuing guidance on the Secretary of States behalf. It is surely right to think that that might happen at some point.

Tim Loughton: What confuses me is that neither the Minister nor we expect the Secretary of State to come up with all the ideas about what should be in the PSHE guidance; he or she will be advised by experts. However, we do not expect the experts to be the final arbiters and signers-off of the changes that will be imposed on schools. Surely their advice must be given to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State should then issue guidance and be accountable for that decision to the House, not to some anonymous bunch of financiers.

Diana Johnson: I was using personal finance as a concrete example of how expert advice and guidance might be useful. The flexibility in the provisions will allow the Secretary of State to draw from experience and knowledge in the widest possible sense. I also referred to a panel of experts on drugs, who might bring with them the respect of a community dealing with drugs when proposing what issues need to be addressed in schools.
To move on to the group of amendments dealing specifically with the principles that would govern the delivery of PSHE in the classroom, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, the schools doing PSHE best at the moment are already engaging with parents and explaining exactly what will be taught. I know that some schools provide worksheets, especially on sex and relationship issues, so work can be taken home at the end of a PSHE lesson and parents can understand and engage fully with that part of PSHE. Engaging with parents is absolutely the right thing to do. Schools and parents should work in partnership to ensure that PSHE is delivered in the best possible way.
Amendment 79 would remove the principles underpinning the teaching of PSHE. It is particularly important for statutory PSHE that we provide clear and consistent messages, which need to be underpinned by a clear definition of both PSHE and how it can be taught. We consider it important to embrace a number of key principles that we think should underpin the teaching elements of statutory PSHE, all of which are equally valid.
The responses to our consultation on PSHE revealed concerns that some protection was needed against inappropriate and unbalanced teaching, particularly on some of the more emotive elements. It is vital that the teaching be factually accurate, as the first principle requires, but at the same time it is important that we recognise the particular religious and cultural backgrounds of pupils and schools without ignoring the wider religious and cultural make-up of the nation as a whole. The principles strike that balance.
The principle of requiring PSHE to be taught in a way that promotes equality

Ken Purchase: Will the Minister give me an example of balance? Incidentally, on a point of order, Mr. Betts, I need the microphones turned up. When the Minister speaks in that way, I can scarcely hear what is being said. Is it possible to do that? I do not think that I am the only 70-year-old in the room, but I need them turned up a bit.

Clive Betts: Someone will turn them up.

Diana Johnson: I am sorry; it might be my voice. I have a bad cold as well.
An example that I think it is useful to give involves marriage, civil partnerships and how a faith school might teach about marriage. It might say that marriage and bringing up a family is seen as important in terms of the faith. However, to get balance, the school would also have to talk about civil partnerships and recognise that in society, we have civil partnerships and that there are legal protections for civil partners. That is the kind of perspective.

Ken Purchase: That is not balance; it is simply stating that there is more than one way for two people to enjoy their lives together. What is the problem here? There is no balance in that. Are we taking the view that marriage is much more important than a partnership? I hope not, because if we are, we are probably offending other legislation that we are trying to bring through this place right now.

Diana Johnson: I was trying to give an example of where balance could be given within PSHE. Faith schools have certain beliefs about marriage and homosexuality, as we have already discussed in this Committee. It is important that we recognise that balance is given when we teach PSHE. Obviously, my hon. Friend will not agree with me on this point. [Interruption.] I will try harder. The principles require PSHE to be taught in a way that promotes equality, encourages the acceptance of diversity and emphasises the importance of both rights and responsibilities. We seek to strike an appropriate balance. Removing them would remove some safeguards and assurances that parents and pupils have on the teaching of the subject, which many schools are already doing very well.
Amendment 249 would remove the requirement in the first principle for schools and governing bodies to ensure that the information presented in the course of providing PSHE is done so in a balanced way; we were just having that discussion. I did not agree with the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East made earlier on. Balance is a key element of the first principle, which has been designed to underpin and safeguard teaching of all aspects of PSHE. It is vital that the teaching is not only factually accurate but delivered in a balanced way. The principle of requiring PSHE to be taught in a way that is not only accurate but balanced will allow children and young people to approach issues and topics in an objective way, thereby encouraging them to consider not only their attitudes and values, but acknowledge and reflect on those of others and the wider society. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that children and young people need to be given the opportunity to reflect on contrasting experiences, where they are able to appreciate fully a more holistic and arguably more inclusive view of the environment in which they live, which will help them prepare for the challenges that they will inevitably face in their later years. If schools were to present children and young people with a myopic or distorted view of real life issues and topicssuch as the realities of drug use and their implicationswe would be depriving them of the wide range of skills and knowledge that will help them to prepare for all the challenges, opportunities and responsibilities that they are likely to face in later life.
Amendment 250 would remove the second principle, which states that
PSHE should be taught in a way that
(a) is appropriate to the ages of the pupils concerned and to their religious and cultural backgrounds, and also
(b) reflects a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other perspectives,
which underpin and safeguard the teachings of all aspects of PSHE.

Ann Cryer: If we are going to apply it to reflect cultural and religious backgrounds, I do not want to hear in any school in my constituency the view that sharia law should apply to homosexuals and people who are having same-sex relationships. I am dealing with that sort of thing. Young homosexual men who have been forced into a marriage come to me, and I am having to deal with the consequences. I do not want to hear such views being put out through the schools as well because it would start to defeat me.

Diana Johnson: I want to reassure my hon. Friend. If she looks at the third principle set out in clause 11, it is clear that
PSHE should be taught in a way that
(a) endeavours to promote equality,
(b) encourages acceptance of diversity, and
(c) emphasises the importance of both rights and responsibilities.

Caroline Flint: Surely it should also be talking about the context of the law of this country.

Diana Johnson: Of course. The law of this country is important. I imagine that it would crop up in PSHE on a number of occasions; for instance, there would be a full discussion about the law in drugs education and about the age of consent and rape in sex and relationship education. There are all sorts of ways that the law of the land would be raised and discussed with young people.
To carry on with amendment 250, it is vital that we recognise that pupils come from particular religious and cultural backgrounds, while not ignoring the wider religious and cultural make-up of the nation as a whole. No one would disagree that teaching needs to be appropriate to the age of the child, but it must also reflect the range of values and beliefs of pupils and expose them to the values and beliefs of others, not least for the purpose of examining and exploring their own views.
In todays society, children and young people are very interested in the religious and cultural frameworks that bind them together, and the benefits of that need to be reflected and reinforced in the classroom. Pupils often welcome opportunities to talk about issues on which people have strong viewsabout religion, culture and other perspectivesfree from the bias and prejudice that has afflicted society negatively. It is important to remember that talking in a balanced way about differences in opinion does not promote one set of views over another, or mean that one agrees with a particular view. Part of exploring and understanding cultural, religious and other views is finding out that people can agree to disagree. That principle, in particular, underpins and fills an absence in some schools where the make-up has not reflected the community.
PSHE education covers a range of important issues and, in doing so, helps pupils to prepare for the challenges of later life. Those issues are sometimes sensitive, can provoke strong feelings and give rise to a range of views. For PSHE education to be effective, it needs both parents and pupils to be assured that it will not be delivered in a dogmatic, unbalanced or inappropriate way, but in a way that respects and reflects the range of views and beliefs that exist. We believe that those principles, enshrined in legislation, provide an important safeguard that will provide that confidence, while allowing pupils to receive accurate information about important topics.
Amendment 251 would make teaching in accordance with the third principle mandatory. It states:
PSHE should be taught in a way that...endeavours to promote equality,...encourages acceptance of diversity, and...emphasises the importance of both rights and responsibilities.
The amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East is unnecessary. Although the principles underpinning the teaching of PSHE are expressed as things that schools, governing bodies and head teachers should do, that stems only from the fact that they are expressed as principles. My hon. Friend will see that proposed new subsection (4) imposes a duty on the governing body and head teacher to secure that the principles are complied with. Therefore, there is already an obligation at the level he wants.

Martin Linton: Is my hon. Friend sure that proposed new subsection (6)(a) could not be used by a parent who was concerned that gay or non-marital relationships were being talked about in class? It states:
PSHE should be taught in a way that...is appropriate to their religious...backgrounds.
Could parents use that subsection to say that their children should not be taught something that is inappropriate to their religious background? I fear that such phrases open up the possibility of schools being sued by people with strong religious beliefs on the grounds that their children are being taught about things that may be factual, but which they consider inappropriate to their religious background.

Diana Johnson: My hon. Friend might be right if the subsection was taken out of context, but it is the second of three principles. It has to be seen alongside the first principle, about accuracy and balance, and the third principle, which is about promoting equality, encouraging acceptance of diversity and emphasising the importance of both rights and responsibilities. Under the second principleproposed new subsection (6) (b)PSHE must reflect
a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other perspectives.
My understanding is that a school would not be able to say, for instance on homosexuality, We are not going to discuss it, because our religion does not accept that it exists, or we see it as absolutely wrong.

Martin Linton: I take my hon. Friends point, but if proposed new subsection 6(a) can be overridden by appealing to the principle in clause 5 or proposed new subsection 6(b), what function does it serve?

Diana Johnson: Perhaps it would be helpful to say that it is not what is taught but the way it is taught that can reflect cultural and religious views. I do not know if that helps my hon. Friend.

Martin Linton: That confused me even more. I wondered about the way that something is taught. At a banal level, the way something is taught is completely separate from what is taught. Surely, this can only make sense if we are talking about what is being taught.

Diana Johnson: It might help my hon. Friend if I say that facts can be taught as facts, but have to be clearly distinguished from beliefs or doctrines of faith. They have to be taught separately. Facts are taught as facts; beliefs and the views of the faith school would be taught as, This is what the Church believes or what my particular religion believes. I do not know if that helps. Perhaps we can come back to that point.

Tim Loughton: The Minister is confusing facts and opinions. The proposed new subsection 6(a) principle is about being appropriate to the age. A fact is a fact, whatever the age of the person. A fact to do with sex and sexual encounters is a fact, whether one is six, 16 or 96. This is rubbish.

Diana Johnson: I do not accept that it is rubbish. What one teaches a five-year-old in a primary school about relationships is different from what one would teach a 15-year-old in secondary school about sex and relationships. [Hon. Members:  Facts!] I do not accept that. Hon. Members are assuming that all facts are taught to all ages. There are facts taught to five-year-olds, and other facts taught to 15-year-olds. For instance, one would not teach a five-year-old about contraception[Interruption.] That is a fact. One would teach that at 15. Contraception exists.

Bill Wiggin: One wouldnt lie about it either.

Diana Johnson: No, of course not. We are getting rather hung up on this. The idea is that whatever is appropriate for a particular age group within the school, the facts are relayed[Interruption.]

Clive Betts: Order. Perhaps we could have fewer sedentary interventions.

Diana Johnson: Religious and cultural beliefs are part of that context. Perhaps we need to come back to this, but to me it seems quite clear.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the provision is about promoting equality, inclusion and acceptance of diversity. PSHE should promote awareness, respect and understanding for the wide range of practices and beliefs that exist in our society. Personal identities and diversity are two of the key concepts in the national curriculum programme study for PSHE educationpersonal well-being at key stage 3 and 4. PSHE should support pupils to value differences between people, to challenge stereotypes and to understand the world around them. The effect of all the amendments would be to remove that protection, and would damage rather than improve the confidence of parents that their children are receiving effective and balanced PSHE education.
Many elements of PSHE raise contradictory views. However, these principles will enshrine in legislation the need for teaching to be sensitive to those views, but at the same time provide children with accurate information in the context of a balanced view, as well as taking into account their background and the wishes of their parents. I urge hon. Members not to press the amendments.
One final point in relation to faith schools: it has become obvious to me in talking to teachers and parents, that although many faith schools already deliver very good PSHE education, there are concerns that they should be able to deliver it, particularly the sex and relationship component, in a way that has regard to their religious character. I will continue to give that particular issue my consideration.
Finally, the physical and biological facts about sex are taught as part of the science curriculum, from which there is no right of withdrawal. PSHE will be teaching the social and emotional aspect of sex and relationships.

Tim Loughton: The Minister made great play of needing to get the confidence of parents that what their children are being taught is right and appropriate, but she is seriously in danger of losing the confidence of the Committee. She read out her brief perfectly competently and accurately.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming

Tim Loughton: As I was saying, confusion reigns after our short debate on these amendments. The Minister read out her brief perfectly accurately and competently. However, accurately reading out the recipe for apple pie, does not mean that it makes apple pie good for you or that it will cook properly. The debate has shown that the clause is pretty half baked. The fact that she had many legitimate queries about the possible implications and legal challenges that could face schools shows that the clauses have not been thought through properly. I fear that she has been confusing facts with beliefs and subjective notions, which is inevitable when we are dealing with this sort of subject.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East had a bit of a tirade against the Pope. It was reminiscent of one of his predecessors in a Wolverhampton constituency, Enoch Powell, who expressed some views about the authority of the Pope back in 1982. But they are not facts. He asked what the Equality Bill had to do with the Pope. I have some sympathy with that opinion, but it does not make it a fact; it is an opinion. The way that we deal with most of what we are discussing here today is subjective, discretionary and subject to opinions and there will be contrasting opinions within the same community, within the same body of teachers and within the same body of parents.
The fact that the Minister said that at the moment sex education is only dealt with on a compulsory basis through the science curriculum and is based purely on facts suggests that everything else we will add to it will not be facts. It is subjective stuff, particularly around relationships. When is a relationship suitable or appropriate for a 14-year-old girl, for a 15-year-old Muslim girl, for a much more mature 12-year-old girl or whatever? That is all subjective; it is not a fact. How an individual has developed physically might be a fact, but as to what it is appropriate to teach that pupil about the sort of relationship it will be right, proper, suitable or appropriate to engage in is not a fact.

Diana Johnson: I want to make it clear that what I said was that the physical, biological facts are taught as part of the science curriculum.

Tim Loughton: I was not disputing that.
The hon. Member for Keighley made some pertinent points. There are some people who will have strong views on what would be appropriate for their children to be taught about sexuality, sexual relations, drinking, drugs and everything. That is highly subjective and not factual. I trust most schools already to teach the elements of PSHE sensitively and appropriately for my children, which is why I choose the schools I send them to and I can exercise that choice. It is up to the school to devise the most appropriate method, and up to me to decide whether I think that is appropriate for my children. If it do not, I will withdraw them, either from those lessons or from that school.
I will lose that choice under these proposals and it changes the whole dynamic of the relationship between the parent and the school. I am happy to trust the school to do what is best for my children, knowing that I have the power to do something about it if my views change. I have rather less trust in the Secretary of State decreeing what the school should teach my children when my power to exercise choice by opting to withdraw my children from those lessons has been taken away. It changes the whole dynamic.
As we said earlier, it is not really a problem now. Some 0.04 per cent. of parents withdraw their children from sex and relationship educationaround 3,000 children. There is no evidence that those 3,000 children are more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases or to end up as teenage pregnancy statistics. It may be the case; it may not. There is no empirical evidencethere are no factsto suggest that those children who are being withdrawn from that form of education in schools are any worse off for it.
I think that those children would be better off having a decent sex and relationship education, but that goes to the quality argument that I set out at the beginning. None of the things that the Government are trying to do, none of the things that are being imposed on schools and none of the powers that are being taken away from parents will lead to any improvement in what we are trying to achieve, which is a better understanding of and sensitivity towards issues such as sex among our children. That will not happen if, as the Youth Parliament revealed, the quality of what is being taught to them is still poor, as it is in too many cases because of the postcode lottery that we have now.
Key to all of this discussionit would make this discussion redundantwould be improving the quality of sex education in every school in this country. If that is not achieved, all the other necessary elements of PSHE, which have been outlined here, albeit in a very prescriptive way, could turn out to be counter-productive.
That goes to the heart of what we are saying. I believe that the elements of PSHE are very important. I believe that our children need to have a grasp of those elements in a way that will benefit them most and that will fire their desire to understand them and want to learn about them. That will lead them to adopt healthier lifestyles, which we would loosely agree is in their best interests.

Diana Johnson: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentlemans argument and I wonder if he might explain his policy further. What would he do to make PSHE much better? I ask that, because I am failing to understand what he thinks he could do better that we are not putting in the Bill.

Tim Loughton: I repeat, for the third or fourth time, that we would improve the quality of how we teach PSHE.

Diana Johnson: How?

Tim Loughton: By training teachers, or training experts who are not teachers to go into schools, and by having a stronger relationship with voluntary bodies that have expertise in this area, such as FPA, Life Education Centres, various faith groups or whatever. In many cases, they can teach the subject more imaginatively outside the classroom, in a mobile classroom or in a different centre altogether. They can teach it in such a way that the quality of the teaching is absolutely the identifying feature. None of what is suggested in the Bill guarantees, in any way, an uplift in the quality of PSHE teaching.

Caroline Flint: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentlemans point about using other organisations. Often, they bring something to PSHE in their engagement with young people that teachers, who might be doing other subjects or activities, such as marking homework or testing for exams, might find more difficult.
However, I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Is he suggesting that we can just rely on that type of activity by the third sector being provided in an ad hoc way outside of the school day and outside of schools? I have not got anything against that idea, but it still raises the question of the number of children who might miss out on such teaching.
For example, the town centre in Doncaster is not in my constituency. My constituency is a community of mining villages and rural villages and to access many of services that the hon. Gentleman described, local children have to go to Doncaster town centre. We have mobile units, but they can still be hit and miss. At least within a school, regardless of who is providing the teaching, we can be pretty sure that the children are receiving the information, advice, support and facts that they need.

Tim Loughton: Why is such provision hit and miss? The right hon. Lady reveals that the biggest challenge that we will face if the regulations come in is the people running the schools. Why would a school not want to have the best quality PSHE, including sex education, for its pupils? Surely it is in the best interests of all our pupils to learn all the sort of things that we are trying to ensure they learn, albeit in the rather haphazard manner set out in the Bill.
Caroline Flintrose

Tim Loughton: Hold on. Surely, the hallmark of a decent head backed by decent governors is that they want to get the best for their children in PSHE now, without the extra imposition that will be placed on them. One of the reasons they do not get that is because the curriculum is crammed full, and because of the lack of availability of quality education in these matters. The Bill does not address that quality deficiency.

Caroline Flint: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not suggest that the delivery of the legislation will cause an overnight sensation. However, in its own way it can contribute to resolving one of the problems with the current system. As far as I can see, the hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing for the status quo. There is nothing wrong with schools using voluntary organisations and other groups, but evidence suggests that some of the better practice is not being provided in a more mainstream way in our schools. Unfortunately, schools and head teachers do not have the support and resources. Making this subject statutory will not solve all those issues, but it will go some way towards encouraging the voluntary sector to get more involved and help ensure that best practice is better spread and discussed. I have still not heard from the hon. Gentleman what his alternative would be. He seems to be arguing for the status quo.

Tim Loughton: I am not arguing for the status quo. At the start of the debate on the clause, I set out all the things that are going wrong with sex education, in particular the lack of decent sex and relationship education which one could say results in the outcomes that we are getting in terms of teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and everything else. Absolutely fundamental to that issue is the quality of what we teach, and the clause does not address that.

Diana Johnson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that over the past five years, we have trained more than 2,000 teachers in the PSHE continuing professional development programme. Through the initial teacher training opportunities, we are also looking to train new specialist PSHE teachers to join the profession. That would fit with the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman about improving qualitywe all want to do that, and we are starting to do it.

Tim Loughton: If those teachers inspire kids to learn this stuff, that will be a contribution. However, that is all being done without the Bill. The Minister has just admitted my pointa real result will be achieved by having people who know what they are doing teaching our kids in a way that makes them want to learn. Given what she has just said, we do not need this provision.
I seriously believeand the Ministers hon. Friends have made this point to herthat if we want to achieve better learning in all those elements of PSHE about which we agree, the clauses wording contains some potential minefields. For that reason, the Minister should go away and think about better phrasing of the clause, as it could turn out to be counter-productive. All sorts of people and communities with particular agendas will start picking holes in the Bill, and it will become a legal minefield.
On amendment 60, the Minister completely failed to address the genuine concerns that I raised. The final line of clause 11 still allows an expertshe referred to financial expertsanointed by the Secretary of State to act in his place. That expert would be unaccountable to any of us, could act without reference to the Secretary of State, and would not need to have instructions, of which schools must take regard, approved or directed through the office of the Secretary of State. That has serious ramifications for the accountability of the legislation. Are we to believe that a head or governing body should take instructions from somebody such as Professor Nutt, the adviser on the misuse of drugs? I would not want to accept his views on drugs if I were a head or a governor. Are we to believe that a head or a governing body should take advice on financial education from the former chief executive of Northern Rock, rather than the Secretary of State? I would have serious qualms about taking instructions for my pupils from him in place of the Secretary of State, who can be held accountable in this place. I see absolutely no basis for the final line of the clause, certainly without a rider that everything has to be approved through the Secretary of State, who is accountable to this place.
The clause gives an unelected individual huge powers to instruct schools in how to teach various aspects of PSHE in potentially sensitive areas. We have not heard even an attempt to justify the final line of the clause and therefore, on that basis, rather than press the lead amendment I ask that the Committee be invited to vote on amendment 60, when appropriate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 60, in clause 11, page 14, line 10, leave out from State to end of line 11.(Tim Loughton.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

PSHE in Academies etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton: On the principle that we have argued when considering other provisions, and will continue to argue, that academies should be exempted from the rather prescriptive regulations, will the Minister justify both why the clause is in the Bill, given that the Government and the Opposition are in favour of giving academies greater autonomy and power to decide their own matters, and why academies should not have the power to decide how they teach the various aspects of PSHE that we have debated?

Diana Johnson: Clause 12 provides that for the first time, academies will be under a duty to offer the full national curriculum programmes of study in PSHE at key stages 3 and 4. It applies the programme of study and the principles by which it must be taught to academies, so that the system applies to them, just as it does to maintained schools. Academies must also have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Every child must be able to develop the skills to make choices in their lives on real issues that affect them, such as nutrition, sex and relationships, and personal finance. In direct response to the question posed by the hon. Gentleman, those issues affect all children, no matter which school they attend. Academies already teach PSHE in imaginative ways, but putting it on a more formal footing will ensure that all schools, including academies, cover all aspects. That will send a clear message about its importance. I commend clause 12 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordinglyordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Sex and relationships education: manner of provision

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment 197, in clause 13, page 15, line 1, after practicable, insert
, including the conduct of a formal consultation process with parents as to the content of such education,.

Clive Betts: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 62, in clause 13, page 15, leave out lines 6 to 8.
Amendment 173, in clause 13, page 15, line 27, at end add
(7) Sections 10 to 13 of this Act do not apply to home educated children..

Tim Loughton: These are three straightforward amendments dealing with sex and relationships education properwe have been skirting round the subject up until now. Amendment 197 would add a requirement for governors to have a formal consultation with parents about the content of sex and relationships education. We welcome the renaming of sex education to sex and relationships education. As I mentioned earlier, we also welcome the new guidance issued last week, which places, in regulations, value on marriage and family. Those are all positive things.
We all knowthis came out in our earlier debatesthat the way we teach sex and relationships education is a sensitive issue, particularly for certain communities. If we take away parents powers of choice, as later clauses do, it is even more imperative and appropriate that there should be clear and meaningful consultation between the school and the parents before they decide in what manner they are going to teach sex and relationships education to their pupils. Amendment 197 would state that when deciding how to teach sex and relationships education, there must be a formal consultation process with the parents of pupils at a school, or the parents of those who are going to attend that school.
Amendment 62 follows on from the short debate that we had on clause 12 on exempting not just academies but the educational bodies set out in proposed new subsection (1ZA)(b), (c) and (d), namely city technology colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and academies. I think I know what the Ministers response will be: she can read out the previous answer that she read out, with the addition of two other forms of educational establishments. We can take that as read to get us moving on.
Amendment 173 is a probing amendment, and was tabled for the purposes of gaining information. We shall come on to the subject of home education in the dim and distant future. I do not want to pre-empt the lively and entertaining debate that I am sure we are destined to have at some stage, but what is the position regarding sex and relationships education for home educators? Is there no requirement to provide SRE on home educators, as I suspect? In that case, are the Government happy, effectively, to substitute the power of a parent to choose for their child to opt out of SRE for a power for a child to come out of school altogether and be home educated? Is that the other side of the equation that the Government are putting forward? If it is, surely the net result will be more children being home educated. Yet the Government are bringing in additional regulations, which will make it harder to be a freelance home educator. There is a bit of a dichotomy there.
The first amendmentamendment 197would be a valuable addition to the Bill, while the other two are probing amendments to give the Government the opportunity to state their position for the benefit of the Committee.

Diana Johnson: The amendments would introduce further conditions on the provision of sex and relationships educationconditions that are not required. We do not wish to place additional burdens on schools or to impose them unnecessarily in areas where good practice is already in place. It is important for all schools to provide sex and relationships education. Amendment 197 would require schools formally to consult parents about the content of sex and relationships education, the effect of which would be to place another statutory burden on schools and parents that is neither necessary nor desirable. I am certainly surprised that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman wants to do so.

Annette Brooke: I would like the Minister clearly to distinguish what is important: is it the school working with parents throughout the whole process, or a statutory consultation?

Diana Johnson: Governing bodies already have a statutory responsibility to ensure that schools have an SRE policy in place. Many schools have clear, open channels of communication with parents, and that helps them to understand what exactly is being taught in schools. In existing SRE guidance to which schools, including academies, must have regard, it is already best practice to discuss the SRE policy and the content of sex education with parents, and it is clear that many schools do that.
It is far better to encourage and reinforce the importance of regular and open communication between schools and parents through clear guidance, rather than through additional legislation. To that end, we are issuing revised SRE guidance to schools in which we make clear our expectation that schools should have an open, ongoing dialogue with parents on such important issues, and that SRE policies in schools benefit from having regard to parental views.
We are clear that SRE policies must be made available to parents for inspection, and must be provided free of charge to any parent who asks for a copy. As a minimum, we would expect the policy to set out the aims of SRE and how they are consistent with the values and ethos of the school; what pupils will learn at every key stage; how parents, carers and pupils are consulted in developing and reviewing policy; how parents are informed of their right of withdrawal from SRE; and how the school supports them in fulfilling their responsibility to provide SRE at home.
On amendment 62, we believe that it is important for all schools, including academies, to follow the national curriculum in sex and relationships education as part of their full programme of PSHE. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said in his opening remarks, I refer him to the answer that I gave in debate on clause 12.
Amendment 173 would ensure that neither the new primary curriculum nor the new provisions relating to PSHE applied to children who are educated at home. The provisions of clauses 10 to 13 make amendments to the Education Act 1996 or to part 6 of the Education Act 2002. In relation to clauses 10 and 11, part 6 of the Education Act 2002 applies only in relation to the national curriculum as taught in maintained schools. It has no application to home-educated pupils who are not taught in maintained schools. Clause 12 applies to academy schools and their pupils only, and amends part 7 of the Education Act 1996. Clause 13 also amends the Education Act 1996, but again its provisions extend only to maintained schools, academies and academy predecessor schools, which is clear from the Bill. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Tim Loughton: Predictably, the Minister answered the question about home education as I thought she wouldand the point about the academies and city technology colleges. I do not agree with her, but I shall not push the argument. I was slightly surprised that, in her answer on amendment 197, she accused us of wanting to place an additional, undesirable statutory burden on schools by requiring them to consult on their sex and relationships education, a particularly sensitive and potential controversial area as we have said. Only a few clauses ago, we were debating parent satisfaction surveysan apparently undesirable statutory burden of her Governments, which is to be placed on schools. I do not see why the two things should be different, particularly when the measures are all about trying to make sure that parents feel included in one particular aspect of their childrens education, given that they are losing powers to withdraw elsewhere. If they are to be included, it is particularly important that they be properly consulted at the outset. That is why we feel that the amendment should be made to the Bill.
Again, as the Minister has admitted, there are various different ways that schools may inform themselves of what their parents want. Some of them may not want to consult parents; that would be a retrograde step, which is why we tried to put a requirement to do so in the Bill. I thought that would be a welcome addition that she might actually allow to be included.

Diana Johnson: It is important that there should be ongoing dialogue between parents and schools about SRE policies. It should be ongoing, not just a one-off consultation. That is the best way to make sure that SRE is taught well in schools, and that parents are fully engaged. Best practice shows that in the schools that do that, the SRE is good.

Tim Loughton: Yes, I completely agree with that, other than the fact that there is nothing in the Bill that requires schools to have an ongoing discussion and debate with parents. Nor is the consultation that we are proposing a one-off consultation. Clearly, it would need to be ongoing as the new guidance comes in, so that we can see how it beds down, and see whether it is proving appropriate for the pupils at that school. There is nothing in our amendment that says that we are talking about a one-off form of consultation that would exclude all other dialogue. It is not helpful to try to dismiss the amendment on those grounds. In the interests of trying to move the Committee along, I point out that we have made all the points that we want to make on the subject. The Minister is clearly not going to give in. I should be happy to reconsider the issue at a later stage, but in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Exemption from sex and relationships education

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 14, page 15, line 31, leave out 15 and insert 16.

Clive Betts: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 162, in clause 14, page 15, line 31, leave out 15 and insert 14.
Amendment 163, in clause 14, page 15, line 33, leave out and relationships.
Amendment 164, in clause 14, page 15, line 34, after school, insert
if that parent has met with the head teacher of the school or the relevant teacher to discuss their concerns and establish the nature of what is to be taught.
Amendment 65, in clause 14, page 15, line 35, leave out from withdrawn to end of line 36.
Amendment 64, in clause 14, page 15, line 36, leave out 15 and insert 16.
Amendment 112, in clause 14, page 15, line 36, leave out 15 and insert 14.
Amendment 195, in clause 14, page 15, line 36, after 15, insert
unless the pupil expresses a wish to be excused from receiving such education..
New clause 7Removal of exemption from sex and relationships education
Section 405 of the Education Act 1996 shall be omitted..

Tim Loughton: It is me again, Mr. Betts, I am afraid. Now we are getting to the really thorny area about exemptions in sex and relationship education. One of the three principles that I set out at the beginning of the PSHE amendments concerned parental choice and parental powers. The clause is clearly an attack on those powers and the exercise of choice that parents currently enjoy but only a very small proportion0.04 per cent. of themchoose to actually employ. My concern is that the principle is wrong. As I stated earlier, ultimately, it is up to parents, in the vast majority of cases, to decide what is best for their children. That includes how they are educated as well. The clause will change the dynamics of the relationship between parents and a school. It could have the counter-productive effect of those parents not engaging properly, willingly, freely and positively with the sex and relationship education as it will now be taught.
Amendments 63 and 65 are a sort of either/or option. We believe that the parental right to exercise choice should remain. There should be no change to the status quo. Indeed, that was the recommendation of Sir Alasdair MacDonalds report in April 2009. He clearly states that the existing rights[Interruption.] There is a lot of chuntering on the Government side.

Diana Johnson: Perhaps I could just ask for clarification. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the status quo, but will he be clear about the age to which the right of withdrawal would therefore extend?

Tim Loughton: The status quo at the moment is the age of 19. That is why I have said that we propose an either/or. Clearly, the Government believe that the age should be reduced and the power to withdraw should be abolished. We do not believe that that power should be abolished; hence, one of the amendments would do away with consideration B, which relates to conditions of age. However, if the clause is to contain a condition of age, as the Government have decided, why should it be 15? Where did the figure 15 come from? What is the relevance of 15? Are children tougher and more able to accept such education at the age of 15, rather than the age of 19, 13 or 17? What is the basis on which 15 was decided? The Liberal Democrats want to make it even lower, and I will be interested to hear their justification of why they think that all pupils from the age of 14 should compulsorily have sex and relationship education without their parents having the power to withdraw them.

David Laws: I cannot speak for the Government, but I imagine that in their mind, it would make sense to have sex education before the age of consentthe age when people can have sex.

Tim Loughton: Yes, but the reason why we have chosen 16 is that it is currently the age to which compulsory schooling takes place. There is some logic behind substituting 15 for 16, or 16 in place of the status quo of 19.

David Laws: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: Let me finish answering the hon. Gentlemans last point before he interrupts me on the next one. If we are to keep the status quo, as I would like to because I believe in the principle of the power of the parent, let us try to choose an age that has some logic to it. Notwithstanding problems about the time of the year at which pupils become 16 or 15, which is another minefield created by having an age instituted in the Bill, there is some logic in 16, because children currently need not be part of the compulsory education system after that age.

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that there is a logic in using the age of 16, which is not, as I understand it, the position of his party. Has he actually decided whether he wants the age to be 18 or 16?

Tim Loughton: I do not want any teen. I want parents to be able to decide what is best for their children and have the power to withdraw. At the moment, they can do so at the age 19, when the vast majority of children are no longer children but adults, who have the full powers of adults to take their life into their own hands and are not beholden to their parents. That is why we want to take out the age condition altogether.
As option B, we have said that, if there must be an age, rather than letting it stand at 15, for which we do not see the logic, 16 would be better. However, that would still be worse than keeping the status quo, as the Governments own report just nine months ago recommended. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister for Schools and Learners wants to intervene now to say why, nine months after Sir Alasdair MacDonalds report, the Government have changed their mind. If the Minister wants to intervene, he can do so to answer that specifically.

Vernon Coaker: The moment has passed.

Tim Loughton: I am sorry; perhaps the Under-Secretary will say in her response why the Government have now reversed their policy on the basis of the clear recommendation that was made in Sir Alasdair MacDonalds report, which they accepted in April and which clearly stated that the existing right of parents to withdraw their children up to the age of 19 from sex and relationship education should be fully retained. Why is Sir Alasdair MacDonald now apparently wrong? Amendment 64 is part of the either/or option of changing 15 to 16 if we must have an age condition at all.
I hope that amendment 195 attracts some support from the Liberal Democrats, because it deals with something on which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I have often agreed: having respect for the voice of the child himself or herself. The amendment would add a condition whereby a child could decide to absent himself or herself from sex and relationship education.

David Laws: Will the hon. Gentleman say which other areas of the national curriculum he would like parents and pupils to be allowed to opt out of?

Tim Loughton: None. We are only dealing with PSHE and specifically, in relation to the clause, sex and relationship education, which has been the subject of opting out in the past. That is why the right to opt out should be retained.

David Laws: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there should be any opt-out on religious education?

Tim Loughton: There are requirements on attending assemblies at the moment and on religious education about which we could have an interesting debate.

Clive Betts: Order. Probably not tonight.

Tim Loughton: I was rather looking forward to having an interesting debate on that, particularly with the hon. Member for Keighley.
What role does the Minister think the voice of children should play in determining what happens to them regarding sex and relationship education? Why is there nothing anywhere in this legislation on having any regard for the wishes and feelings of the children? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question.

Edward Timpson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the idea behind the amendment is in line with the thinking on parents who have separated and are in dispute about whether their child should receive sex and relationship education in school? Under an application for a specific order, a court would have to consider the wishes and feelings of the child.

Tim Loughton: Indeed; the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I have supported such legislation in the past, but such provision features nowhere in the Bill and none of the relevant clauses mention the effect that it will have or the wishes and feelings of the child. My hon. Friend makes a good point.
Perhaps the Minister will justify where the age of 15 came from, why the good Sir Alasdair Macdonalds report has become irrelevant within nine months of its being published, why she thinks that there are sufficient safeguards to cater for the withdrawal of powers for the choice of parents and why childrens wishes and feelings have no bearing on this matter at all.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.[Kerry McCarthy.]

Adjourned till Thursday 4 February at Nine oclock.